Silencing the Truth: Homosexual Activist Group Targets Kids in School
Feature by Ed Vitagliano
June 21, 2005
(AgapePress) - Most people would immediately recognize the significance of common abbreviations, like FBI, IRS or CIA. But there is another abbreviation with which parents might want to become familiar, because more than likely the organization it represents will be coming soon to a public school near them.
That abbreviation is GLSEN (pronounced "glisten"). It is the acronym for Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Begun a decade ago by homosexual activist Kevin Jennings, a former Massachusetts history teacher, the group has relentlessly pushed the homosexual agenda in the public school system.
One of GLSEN's major annual campaigns is the "Day of Silence," held this year on April 13. On this day, the organization's website said that homosexual and sympathetic, heterosexual students "take a vow of silence to bring attention to the bias and harassment experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) students and their allies." Instead of talking out loud, students merely hand out cards that explain what they are doing and why.
GLSEN claims that 450,000 students in over 4,000 schools -- in all 50 states -- participated in this year's silent protest.
Many parents might find it amazing that these students, with the full support of their school administration and faculty, are allowed each year to refuse to verbally participate in classroom activity and, essentially, stage a protest.
GLSEN insists, however, that the Day of Silence is necessary to prevent the harassment and abuse of homosexual students by their own classmates.
In fact, this is the justification for GLSEN's entire existence. According to the organization's website, GLSEN is "an education organization ensuring safe schools for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students."
Dr. Warren Throckmorton, associate professor of psychology at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, isn't buying that explanation. He said, "These events [like Day of Silence] are about persuasion. They are efforts to change attitudes and beliefs concerning homosexuality cloaked in rhetoric concerning safety."
Throckmorton notes that the Day of Silence guidebook specifically highlights the political side of the event. It says: "The Day of Silence enables participants to show, in a highly visible way, everyone they encounter, that they support LGBT rights."
"This is political activism, pure and simple," Throckmorton said. "Agree with gay rights or not, let's understand this clearly: the purpose of [the Day of Silence] is to advance a civil rights agenda in the public schools."
Who Must Remain Silent
In reality, it is an agenda that will allow no rebuttal to its "gay is OK" message. People who do object often discover that they are the ones silenced.
At South Windsor High School in Connecticut, for example, the GLSEN-orchestrated Day of Silence found plenty of willing participants. According to the Journal Inquirer, a local newspaper, students not only remained silent, but wore signs in support of current state legislation that would legalize civil unions for homosexuals.
However, later that same week, four students were sent home from school for wearing T-shirts that said, "Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve" -- a reference to the signs worn in support of same-sex civil unions. Their T-shirts also contained Bible verses about homosexuality.
Steven Vendetta, one of the four, told the Journal Inquirer, "We felt if they could voice their opinions for it, we could voice our opinion against it."
He was wrong. Members of the South Windsor Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) complained to the principal, who told the four students that some of their classmates were becoming "emotionally distraught" over the messages on the T-shirts. Vendetta and his friends were told they could either change shirts or go home. They chose the latter.
Ironically, the core message of the Day of Silence -- safety -- was used as a bludgeon against those who opposed homosexuality. In response to the T-shirt messages worn by her classmates, Diana Rosen, who helps lead the South Windsor GSA, complained, "I didn't feel safe at this school today."
According to the Journal Inquirer, another GSA member, Alex Goldberg, said Vendetta and his three comrades had a right to their opinions -- but crossed the line with their T-shirts. "School is supposed to be a safe zone for everyone. It's crossing a line when you target other people," he said.
Mandatory Indoctrination
GLSEN's activism goes beyond the once-a-year campaign by silent students. Across the nation, GLSEN promotes and supports more than 3,000 GSAs in high schools.
Again, these groups are purportedly all about safety because they claim to teach classmates that homosexuality deserves tolerance and respect. But Throckmorton said there is no evidence that GSAs and such efforts as the Day of Silence make anyone safer.
"In fact, GLSEN is aware that there are no data suggesting that such activism prevents bullying [of homosexual students]," he said. "I have asked GLSEN for the evidence supporting training programs including sexual orientation, and they have had the integrity to admit that there is none."
The lack of such evidence doesn't seem to faze GLSEN one bit, and schools that refuse to allow GSAs can expect to learn their lesson as quickly as the four students at South Windsor.
In Kentucky, the Boyd County Board of Education resisted the formation of a GSA, but were promptly slapped with a lawsuit in 2003 filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of students who wanted to start the club.
In 2004 the school board settled out of court with the ACLU and the plaintiffs. Under the oversight of U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning, Boyd County agreed not only to allow the GSA, but also to require school staffers, middle school students and high school students to attend tolerance training beginning in the fall of 2004.
Training for students includes a video that states that if one student speaks out against homosexuality to another student -- who happens to be homosexual -- that is considered harassment. The offending student would then be punished.
Parents were informed that they were not allowed to opt their own children out of the instruction, and the entire policy has led some of them to file their own lawsuit against the school district, alleging that their children are being subjected to pro-homosexual indoctrination.
Kevin Theriot, an attorney representing some of the parents of students in Boyd County, told Baptist Press, "Obviously, we're not advocating that students have the right to bully someone because they're homosexual. But they certainly have the right to express their disagreement with them and say to them that they believe homosexuality is harmful to people who practice it and harmful to society as a whole. As Christians, we have an obligation to reach out to people that we think are hurting themselves."
According to the Education Reporter, hundreds of students defied the Boyd County tolerance training requirement, either by not showing up on the day the video was to be shown or by refusing to watch it.
The article said the ACLU was threatening to seek a court order to force the students to attend.
News from Agape Press
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Schiavo Autopsy Report: No Excuses for Dehydrating the Disabled
WASHINGTON, June 15 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Concerned Women for America (CWA) responded to the autopsy report on Terri Schiavo, released today by a medical examiner for Florida's Pinellas-Pasco County, which confirmed that the "removal of [Terri's] feeding tube resulted in her death."
"Terri Schiavo's autopsy results confirm what was feared – she was disabled, and her death was due to the deliberate denial of hydration," said Wendy Wright, CWA's senior policy director. "The autopsy report described Terri's medical history and condition in detail, but the cold reality of the truth is that her cause of death was 'dehydration.' Terri Schiavo died because the court ordered the removal of the instrument that provided her water.
"There is no medical condition or disability that should ever be championed as a justifiable reason to deny water to a human being. Every human life has worth and a purpose apart from its 'merit' to society that must be vigorously defended and upheld, not crushed."
"While people may personally dread becoming handicapped, people with disabilities deserve mercy, not malice. Only a calloused society in moral freefall would deny a disabled person her most basic need – water," said Wright.
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.
Contact: Rebecca S. Jones of Concerned Women for America, 202-488-7000 ext. 126
CWA Responds to Schiavo Autopsy Report: No Excuses for Dehydrating the Disabled
"Terri Schiavo's autopsy results confirm what was feared – she was disabled, and her death was due to the deliberate denial of hydration," said Wendy Wright, CWA's senior policy director. "The autopsy report described Terri's medical history and condition in detail, but the cold reality of the truth is that her cause of death was 'dehydration.' Terri Schiavo died because the court ordered the removal of the instrument that provided her water.
"There is no medical condition or disability that should ever be championed as a justifiable reason to deny water to a human being. Every human life has worth and a purpose apart from its 'merit' to society that must be vigorously defended and upheld, not crushed."
"While people may personally dread becoming handicapped, people with disabilities deserve mercy, not malice. Only a calloused society in moral freefall would deny a disabled person her most basic need – water," said Wright.
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.
Contact: Rebecca S. Jones of Concerned Women for America, 202-488-7000 ext. 126
CWA Responds to Schiavo Autopsy Report: No Excuses for Dehydrating the Disabled
Coalition Wants Retraction From Dems, Apology From Dean
By Bill Fancher
June 16, 2005
(AgapePress) - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean's recent attack on the Republican Party, in which he called it a party of "white Christians," continues to generate anger among members of both political parties.
Michele Combs of the Christian Coalition of America believes Howard Dean needs to take a closer look at the GOP's emphasis on diversity. "If you look at President Bush's cabinet, he has the most diverse cabinet of any president before him," she points out.
A December 2004 USA Today article noted that in President George W. Bush's first term, he matched the record that President Bill Clinton set in his first term for appointing women and people of color to the Cabinet. But at the same time, Bush had a more diverse inner circle at the White House; and since his re-election, Clinton's successor in the Oval Office has made a series of groundbreaking nominations, appointing a more diverse set of top advisers than any U.S. president in history.
Combs feels Howard Dean's comments about the Republican Party were not only inaccurate but irresponsible and hypocritical. "If he would have said it about the Democratic Party," she says, "I think probably someone would have resigned over this. So, yes, I think it's total hypocrisy [on the part] of the Democratic Party."
Nevertheless, Dean's fellow Democrats have come to his defense, urging the media to focus on "issues" rather than on the DNC leader's comments. Some conservatives see this stance as ironic, coming as it does from the party that relentlessly attacked former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott for informal remarks he made at former Senator Strom Thurmond's birthday party, eventually driving Lott from his GOP leadership position.
Combs feels Howard Dean's characterization of the Republican Party as being restricted to white Christians is a sad commentary on the state to which liberal discourse has deteriorated under his headship of the DNC. She says other Democrats need to quit defending Dean and acknowledge the untruth of his statements.
"I think they definitely need to retract those words," the Christian Coalition spokeswoman says, "because we have good Christians in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party; and I just think it was an insult to all religions that are involved in both parties."
In a recent statement, the Christian Coalition condemned Dean for his inflammatory statements injecting race and religious affiliation into the debate on national party membership. The president of the coalition says its members agree with those in Dean's own party, such as Senator Joe Leiberman (D-CT), who feel the DNC chairman should apologize for his divisive remarks.
Christian Coalition Wants Retraction From Dems, Apology From Dean
June 16, 2005
(AgapePress) - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean's recent attack on the Republican Party, in which he called it a party of "white Christians," continues to generate anger among members of both political parties.
Michele Combs of the Christian Coalition of America believes Howard Dean needs to take a closer look at the GOP's emphasis on diversity. "If you look at President Bush's cabinet, he has the most diverse cabinet of any president before him," she points out.
A December 2004 USA Today article noted that in President George W. Bush's first term, he matched the record that President Bill Clinton set in his first term for appointing women and people of color to the Cabinet. But at the same time, Bush had a more diverse inner circle at the White House; and since his re-election, Clinton's successor in the Oval Office has made a series of groundbreaking nominations, appointing a more diverse set of top advisers than any U.S. president in history.
Combs feels Howard Dean's comments about the Republican Party were not only inaccurate but irresponsible and hypocritical. "If he would have said it about the Democratic Party," she says, "I think probably someone would have resigned over this. So, yes, I think it's total hypocrisy [on the part] of the Democratic Party."
Nevertheless, Dean's fellow Democrats have come to his defense, urging the media to focus on "issues" rather than on the DNC leader's comments. Some conservatives see this stance as ironic, coming as it does from the party that relentlessly attacked former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott for informal remarks he made at former Senator Strom Thurmond's birthday party, eventually driving Lott from his GOP leadership position.
Combs feels Howard Dean's characterization of the Republican Party as being restricted to white Christians is a sad commentary on the state to which liberal discourse has deteriorated under his headship of the DNC. She says other Democrats need to quit defending Dean and acknowledge the untruth of his statements.
"I think they definitely need to retract those words," the Christian Coalition spokeswoman says, "because we have good Christians in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party; and I just think it was an insult to all religions that are involved in both parties."
In a recent statement, the Christian Coalition condemned Dean for his inflammatory statements injecting race and religious affiliation into the debate on national party membership. The president of the coalition says its members agree with those in Dean's own party, such as Senator Joe Leiberman (D-CT), who feel the DNC chairman should apologize for his divisive remarks.
Christian Coalition Wants Retraction From Dems, Apology From Dean
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Daughter of Homosexual Dad Hopes to Share Her Saga
By Chad Groening
June 15, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Christian woman in Canada whose father was heavily involved in the homosexual lifestyle says she wants people on both sides of the border to understand how devastating homosexuality is on children.
Dawn Stefanowicz is a born-again Christian and mother of two. She wants that committee to know about how it was growing up with a homosexual father -- but so far, the Canadian government has shown no interest in hearing her testimony.
"I have put my name forward. I haven't been called as a witness, so I'm not expecting [that to happen]," Stefanowicz shares. "They're probably looking at me as just one person, [but] they don't realize that there are a number of children already who are growing up or have grown up with a parent who struggles with same-sex attraction."
Stefanowicz says she is fearful that the government will come down hard on anyone who publicly opposes the homosexual lifestyle. "There's a concern that a person or organization that allows something to be shared publicly could be charged with a hate crime," the Ontario resident explains. "And this can even happen within a church, it could happen within a small-group setting, it could happen just through a media interview."
She surmises that is why few Canadians have gone public with any criticism. "I haven't come across a lot [of public statements against homosexuality] in Canada," she says. "It's more in the United States that [people] have come forward and presented their stories publicly."
According to Stefanowicz, the liberal media in Canada has done a "very poor job" of presenting evidence on the influence the homosexual lifestyle has on children. "Scientific data and negative personal experiences related to this issue that are obviously relevant -- they're ignored, they're not discussed," she says.
Stefanowicz's father died of AIDS. Now, more than a decade later, she wants to go public to tell from personal experience of the devastating effect the homosexual lifestyle has on children.
Daughter of Homosexual Dad Hopes to Share Her Saga with North America
June 15, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Christian woman in Canada whose father was heavily involved in the homosexual lifestyle says she wants people on both sides of the border to understand how devastating homosexuality is on children.
Dawn Stefanowicz is a born-again Christian and mother of two. She wants that committee to know about how it was growing up with a homosexual father -- but so far, the Canadian government has shown no interest in hearing her testimony.
"I have put my name forward. I haven't been called as a witness, so I'm not expecting [that to happen]," Stefanowicz shares. "They're probably looking at me as just one person, [but] they don't realize that there are a number of children already who are growing up or have grown up with a parent who struggles with same-sex attraction."
Stefanowicz says she is fearful that the government will come down hard on anyone who publicly opposes the homosexual lifestyle. "There's a concern that a person or organization that allows something to be shared publicly could be charged with a hate crime," the Ontario resident explains. "And this can even happen within a church, it could happen within a small-group setting, it could happen just through a media interview."
She surmises that is why few Canadians have gone public with any criticism. "I haven't come across a lot [of public statements against homosexuality] in Canada," she says. "It's more in the United States that [people] have come forward and presented their stories publicly."
According to Stefanowicz, the liberal media in Canada has done a "very poor job" of presenting evidence on the influence the homosexual lifestyle has on children. "Scientific data and negative personal experiences related to this issue that are obviously relevant -- they're ignored, they're not discussed," she says.
Stefanowicz's father died of AIDS. Now, more than a decade later, she wants to go public to tell from personal experience of the devastating effect the homosexual lifestyle has on children.
Daughter of Homosexual Dad Hopes to Share Her Saga with North America
No dialogue with the Jews and Christians other than the sound of bullets, blood and fire
Iraq's al Qaeda warns against talks with govt-Web
Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:47 PM ET
DUBAI (Reuters) - Iraq's al Qaeda vowed to kill anyone negotiating with the U.S.-backed Iraqi government in a Web statement on Tuesday, a sign the group was worried about possible divisions among its Sunni Muslim allies.
The group led by Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was responding to what it said were reports that tribal leaders in Iraq's third-largest city Mosul, the scene of frequent outbreaks of guerrilla violence, were seeking talks.
"Liars claim that the sheikhs of tribes in Mosul plan to hand over mujahideen (holy fighters) and assist the crusaders and apostates, and we do not know which tribes or sheikhs they speak of," the Sunni Muslim group said.
"We will impose God's punishment on anyone who stands by the crusaders or becomes their ally or supports them. The righteous swords are unsheathed and hunger for blood," it said in a statement posted on an Islamist Web site.
The Iraqi government said on Sunday some rebels had approached it looking for peace terms but gave no details of who had made contact.
Zarqawi issued a similar warning in an audio tape attributed to him in April, referring to reports that U.S. and Iraqi officials had offered to negotiate with some militants.
Zarqawi's group is the deadliest among several waging an insurgency against U.S. forces and the Iraqi government. Rebels include secular nationalists from Saddam Hussein's ousted Baath party and foreign Islamists.
The Shi'ite-led Iraqi government has often said it is willing to talk to rebels who stop fighting.
"We reiterate that there will be no dialogue with the Jews and Christians other than the sound of bullets, blood and fire," Al Qaeda Organization for Holy War in Iraq said in a separate Web statement.
Iraq's al Qaeda warns against talks with govt-Web
Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:47 PM ET
DUBAI (Reuters) - Iraq's al Qaeda vowed to kill anyone negotiating with the U.S.-backed Iraqi government in a Web statement on Tuesday, a sign the group was worried about possible divisions among its Sunni Muslim allies.
The group led by Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was responding to what it said were reports that tribal leaders in Iraq's third-largest city Mosul, the scene of frequent outbreaks of guerrilla violence, were seeking talks.
"Liars claim that the sheikhs of tribes in Mosul plan to hand over mujahideen (holy fighters) and assist the crusaders and apostates, and we do not know which tribes or sheikhs they speak of," the Sunni Muslim group said.
"We will impose God's punishment on anyone who stands by the crusaders or becomes their ally or supports them. The righteous swords are unsheathed and hunger for blood," it said in a statement posted on an Islamist Web site.
The Iraqi government said on Sunday some rebels had approached it looking for peace terms but gave no details of who had made contact.
Zarqawi issued a similar warning in an audio tape attributed to him in April, referring to reports that U.S. and Iraqi officials had offered to negotiate with some militants.
Zarqawi's group is the deadliest among several waging an insurgency against U.S. forces and the Iraqi government. Rebels include secular nationalists from Saddam Hussein's ousted Baath party and foreign Islamists.
The Shi'ite-led Iraqi government has often said it is willing to talk to rebels who stop fighting.
"We reiterate that there will be no dialogue with the Jews and Christians other than the sound of bullets, blood and fire," Al Qaeda Organization for Holy War in Iraq said in a separate Web statement.
Iraq's al Qaeda warns against talks with govt-Web
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Many Promote Homosexual Parenting With Poor Reasons, Faulty Premise
By Mary Rettig
June 9, 2005
(AgapePress) - It's a biological given that homosexuals cannot reproduce; however, many are getting children by hiring surrogates. One professor at Marquette University says these manufactured families are just an effort to "normalize" homosexuality.
Dr. Christopher Wolfe is a professor of political science and an expert on homosexuality and American public life. He says some homosexual couples really do want to adopt or have children because they desire a family; but those who do, he contends, are in the minority.
Wolfe says indications of this leads many analysts to suspect what he believes to be true, "that the big push for same-sex parenting has much less to do with the desire of homosexuals, generally, for children than it does with a desire that they have to not be different -- to not be singled out and treated differently."
For most homosexuals, Wolfe contends, the desire to become parents is really about legitimizing their type of relationship and denying the abnormality of it, including the inability to produce children. "They want to have the same rights that everybody else in society has," he says.
The Marquette University professor says homosexual activists try to stack their arguments in favor of homosexual parenting by citing studies that claim there is no noticeable difference between the children of homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. However, he notes, much of the evidence they cite comes from people who were looking for a particular outcome.
On the other hand, Wolfe points out, "If you look at a number of different first-rate social science articles that have approached this subject -- one is by anti-gay-parenting authors Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai -- they analyze all these studies about same-sex parenting and show that all of those studies are really defective." In fact, the professor adds, two pro-homosexual-parenting researchers actually point out in their study that children of homosexual parents do turn out differently from children parented by a mother and a father.
Rejecting the assumption that no differences exist, Wolfe says the two researchers investigated and went on to conclude that children of homosexual parents are more likely to be depressed and more likely to display homosexual tendencies as they mature.
Many Promote Homosexual Parenting With Poor Reasons, Faulty Premise
June 9, 2005
(AgapePress) - It's a biological given that homosexuals cannot reproduce; however, many are getting children by hiring surrogates. One professor at Marquette University says these manufactured families are just an effort to "normalize" homosexuality.
Dr. Christopher Wolfe is a professor of political science and an expert on homosexuality and American public life. He says some homosexual couples really do want to adopt or have children because they desire a family; but those who do, he contends, are in the minority.
Wolfe says indications of this leads many analysts to suspect what he believes to be true, "that the big push for same-sex parenting has much less to do with the desire of homosexuals, generally, for children than it does with a desire that they have to not be different -- to not be singled out and treated differently."
For most homosexuals, Wolfe contends, the desire to become parents is really about legitimizing their type of relationship and denying the abnormality of it, including the inability to produce children. "They want to have the same rights that everybody else in society has," he says.
The Marquette University professor says homosexual activists try to stack their arguments in favor of homosexual parenting by citing studies that claim there is no noticeable difference between the children of homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. However, he notes, much of the evidence they cite comes from people who were looking for a particular outcome.
On the other hand, Wolfe points out, "If you look at a number of different first-rate social science articles that have approached this subject -- one is by anti-gay-parenting authors Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai -- they analyze all these studies about same-sex parenting and show that all of those studies are really defective." In fact, the professor adds, two pro-homosexual-parenting researchers actually point out in their study that children of homosexual parents do turn out differently from children parented by a mother and a father.
Rejecting the assumption that no differences exist, Wolfe says the two researchers investigated and went on to conclude that children of homosexual parents are more likely to be depressed and more likely to display homosexual tendencies as they mature.
Many Promote Homosexual Parenting With Poor Reasons, Faulty Premise
Media Stumbling Over Jefferson's 'Wall of Separation'
By Gregory J. Rummo
June 10, 2005
(AgapePress)
A University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy study found that journalists who were surveyed picked Democrat John Kerry over George Bush in the 2004 election by a margin of over 2-to-1. In another survey, only 12 percent of local reporters, editors, and media executives are self-described conservatives.
The Christian Science Monitor reported last year on the findings of the non-partisan Pew Research Center which found "the gap between journalists and other Americans particularly wide on social issues."
Five-hundred-forty-seven journalists and executives in a wide range of print and broadcast organizations were surveyed. Eighty-eight percent thought "society should accept homosexuality; about half the general public agrees. And while about 60 percent of Americans say morality and a belief in God are inexorably linked, only 6 percent of national journalists and executives surveyed believe that."
Liberal media bias is old news.
What is news is that lately, this bias has turned ugly and in some cases, downright hostile.
A newspaper in which my column appears recently dished up an editorial written in response to my column, "Liberals apply double standard when it comes to religion."
Entitled "The right is wrong," the editorial led with a laundry list of complaints: "The religious right wants to outlaw abortion, permanently ban embryonic stem-cell research, require the teaching of creationism in schools, and funnel ever-more federal money to religious groups."
The hand-wringing continued several paragraphs later as Christians were compared to mullahs desiring a theocracy in America. "But what distinguishes a democracy from a theocracy except the wall dividing church and state?"
The title of the editorial reminded me of the prophet Isaiah's words "Woe to those who call ... good evil." That the religious right would like to see the genocide of pre-born humans halted is not news. What is it that evolutionists fear when the teaching of "creationism" (Intelligent Design is a better metaphor) is proposed in public schools? Are evolutionists so insecure in their own religion -- which requires its adherents to practice faith in spontaneous generation, a "theory" debunked centuries ago by modern science -- that they cannot stand to have their ideas challenged? And why not fund faith-based organizations if indeed they are the most effective in solving the societal problems that continue to plague us?
If the media wishes to characterize Judeo-Christian influence in American culture as a breach in "the wall of separation," its members need to go back to school and brush up on their American history. Their hallowed "wall" is not mentioned in any of the founding documents of our country -- including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
The concept of separation of church and state comes from a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a private letter written to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, to quell their fears that the First Amendment's guarantee of free religious expression implied it was a freedom that was only government-given and not God-given.
Jefferson wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Author and historian David Barton explains: "Jefferson's reference to 'natural rights' invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase 'natural rights' communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little. By definition, 'natural rights' included 'that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.' That is, 'natural rights' incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their 'natural rights' they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference."
"Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the ... 'wall' of the Danbury letter w[as] not to limit religious activities in public; rather [it] w[as] to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions."
"Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination."
Jefferson's intentions were very clear.
What is not clear is why this must be explained by a businessman moonlighting as a newspaper columnist.
[Edited for brevity, full article at:]
Media Stumbling Over Jefferson's 'Wall of Separation'
June 10, 2005
(AgapePress)
A University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy study found that journalists who were surveyed picked Democrat John Kerry over George Bush in the 2004 election by a margin of over 2-to-1. In another survey, only 12 percent of local reporters, editors, and media executives are self-described conservatives.
The Christian Science Monitor reported last year on the findings of the non-partisan Pew Research Center which found "the gap between journalists and other Americans particularly wide on social issues."
Five-hundred-forty-seven journalists and executives in a wide range of print and broadcast organizations were surveyed. Eighty-eight percent thought "society should accept homosexuality; about half the general public agrees. And while about 60 percent of Americans say morality and a belief in God are inexorably linked, only 6 percent of national journalists and executives surveyed believe that."
Liberal media bias is old news.
What is news is that lately, this bias has turned ugly and in some cases, downright hostile.
A newspaper in which my column appears recently dished up an editorial written in response to my column, "Liberals apply double standard when it comes to religion."
Entitled "The right is wrong," the editorial led with a laundry list of complaints: "The religious right wants to outlaw abortion, permanently ban embryonic stem-cell research, require the teaching of creationism in schools, and funnel ever-more federal money to religious groups."
The hand-wringing continued several paragraphs later as Christians were compared to mullahs desiring a theocracy in America. "But what distinguishes a democracy from a theocracy except the wall dividing church and state?"
The title of the editorial reminded me of the prophet Isaiah's words "Woe to those who call ... good evil." That the religious right would like to see the genocide of pre-born humans halted is not news. What is it that evolutionists fear when the teaching of "creationism" (Intelligent Design is a better metaphor) is proposed in public schools? Are evolutionists so insecure in their own religion -- which requires its adherents to practice faith in spontaneous generation, a "theory" debunked centuries ago by modern science -- that they cannot stand to have their ideas challenged? And why not fund faith-based organizations if indeed they are the most effective in solving the societal problems that continue to plague us?
If the media wishes to characterize Judeo-Christian influence in American culture as a breach in "the wall of separation," its members need to go back to school and brush up on their American history. Their hallowed "wall" is not mentioned in any of the founding documents of our country -- including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
The concept of separation of church and state comes from a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a private letter written to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, to quell their fears that the First Amendment's guarantee of free religious expression implied it was a freedom that was only government-given and not God-given.
Jefferson wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Author and historian David Barton explains: "Jefferson's reference to 'natural rights' invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase 'natural rights' communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little. By definition, 'natural rights' included 'that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.' That is, 'natural rights' incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their 'natural rights' they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference."
"Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the ... 'wall' of the Danbury letter w[as] not to limit religious activities in public; rather [it] w[as] to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions."
"Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination."
Jefferson's intentions were very clear.
What is not clear is why this must be explained by a businessman moonlighting as a newspaper columnist.
[Edited for brevity, full article at:]
Media Stumbling Over Jefferson's 'Wall of Separation'
Parents Riled About 6th-Grade 'Sex Survey'
By Jim Brown and Jody Brown
June 10, 2005
(AgapePress) - Parents in one Massachusetts town are expressing outrage over an explicit sex survey being administered to sixth-graders without disclosing the questions to moms and dads.
Parents in Shrewsbury are upset that the local school committee is refusing to reveal the content of its version of the Centers for Disease Control's "Youth Risk Behavior Study." The 22-page YRBS on the CDC website [PDF] contains 87 questions, seven of which deal with sexual behavior. The survey solicits answers to such questions as "How old were you when you had sexual intercourse for the first time?" and "The last time you had sexual intercourse, did you or your partner use a condom?"
The school committee in Shrewsbury will not allow parents to view copies of the survey because they feel parents will "misinterpret" the questions. However, parent David Fisher says unbelievably, there is no concern that sixth-graders will misinterpret the questions -- and he contends the questions go even further.
"In the 6th grade -- these are children 11 or 12 years old -- they are being asked if they have ever engaged in oral sex, when was the first time that they engaged in oral sex, with how many different people have they engaged in oral sex," Fisher says. "And they ask the same three questions about sexual intercourse, and whether or not they've used a condom, amongst other things." A word search of the online version of the CDC survey, however, turns up no mention of oral sex.
Still, Fisher -- who has an 11-year-old daughter in the school system -- says there is a great deal of anger among parents in his neighborhood and across the town.
"First, [because] of the contents of the survey -- and then secondly, [because] we have been purposely kept in the dark and [are being] made to feel as though we're backward, we're ignorant, [and] we would misinterpret these questions," the Massachusetts father remarks. "The problem is, we interpret them correctly. It's the school department that is misinterpreting these questions [and] seeing nothing wrong with them."
According to Fisher, a sex survey being administered to Shrewsbury eighth-graders asks students to identify themselves as heterosexual, "gay or lesbian," or bisexual.
Current state law in Massachusetts allows parents to opt their children out of programs that involve human sexuality, but Fisher and other parents are fighting for a bill now in the State House that would change the opt-out policy into an opt-in policy.
http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/pdfs/2005highschoolquestionnaire.pdf
Mass. Parents Riled About 6th-Grade 'Sex Survey'
June 10, 2005
(AgapePress) - Parents in one Massachusetts town are expressing outrage over an explicit sex survey being administered to sixth-graders without disclosing the questions to moms and dads.
Parents in Shrewsbury are upset that the local school committee is refusing to reveal the content of its version of the Centers for Disease Control's "Youth Risk Behavior Study." The 22-page YRBS on the CDC website [PDF] contains 87 questions, seven of which deal with sexual behavior. The survey solicits answers to such questions as "How old were you when you had sexual intercourse for the first time?" and "The last time you had sexual intercourse, did you or your partner use a condom?"
The school committee in Shrewsbury will not allow parents to view copies of the survey because they feel parents will "misinterpret" the questions. However, parent David Fisher says unbelievably, there is no concern that sixth-graders will misinterpret the questions -- and he contends the questions go even further.
"In the 6th grade -- these are children 11 or 12 years old -- they are being asked if they have ever engaged in oral sex, when was the first time that they engaged in oral sex, with how many different people have they engaged in oral sex," Fisher says. "And they ask the same three questions about sexual intercourse, and whether or not they've used a condom, amongst other things." A word search of the online version of the CDC survey, however, turns up no mention of oral sex.
Still, Fisher -- who has an 11-year-old daughter in the school system -- says there is a great deal of anger among parents in his neighborhood and across the town.
"First, [because] of the contents of the survey -- and then secondly, [because] we have been purposely kept in the dark and [are being] made to feel as though we're backward, we're ignorant, [and] we would misinterpret these questions," the Massachusetts father remarks. "The problem is, we interpret them correctly. It's the school department that is misinterpreting these questions [and] seeing nothing wrong with them."
According to Fisher, a sex survey being administered to Shrewsbury eighth-graders asks students to identify themselves as heterosexual, "gay or lesbian," or bisexual.
Current state law in Massachusetts allows parents to opt their children out of programs that involve human sexuality, but Fisher and other parents are fighting for a bill now in the State House that would change the opt-out policy into an opt-in policy.
http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/pdfs/2005highschoolquestionnaire.pdf
Mass. Parents Riled About 6th-Grade 'Sex Survey'
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Freedom of speech in grave peril as religious hatred bill is unveiled
June 09, 2005
The chief problem is that religious hatred is in the eye of the beholder -- and that Muslim advocacy groups have been quite canny in appropriating the language of civil rights movements in tarring their adversaries as hatemongers. Underscoring this is the fact that British pols openly courted Muslim votes in the last election by declaring their support for the religious hatred bill. Its adoption would be a cornerstone of the Islamization of Britain. "Religious hatred bill is unveiled," from the BBC
Controversial plans to make incitement to religious hatred illegal are being unveiled by the government.
Critics say the re-introduced bill - which bans insulting words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up religious hatred - will stifle free speech.
But ministers have pledged the new law will not affect "criticism, commentary or ridicule of faiths".
If it mirrors racial hatred laws, the maximum sentence for those found guilty will be seven years in prison.
The bill will apply to comments made in public or in the media, as well as through written material.
Freedom of speech
The government says the legislation is a response to the concerns of faith groups, particularly Muslims.
The Muslim Council of Britain has welcomed the move, arguing that the courts have already extended such protection to Sikh and Jewish people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075442.stm
Dhimmi Watch: UK: Freedom of speech in grave peril as religious hatred bill is unveiled
The chief problem is that religious hatred is in the eye of the beholder -- and that Muslim advocacy groups have been quite canny in appropriating the language of civil rights movements in tarring their adversaries as hatemongers. Underscoring this is the fact that British pols openly courted Muslim votes in the last election by declaring their support for the religious hatred bill. Its adoption would be a cornerstone of the Islamization of Britain. "Religious hatred bill is unveiled," from the BBC
Controversial plans to make incitement to religious hatred illegal are being unveiled by the government.
Critics say the re-introduced bill - which bans insulting words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up religious hatred - will stifle free speech.
But ministers have pledged the new law will not affect "criticism, commentary or ridicule of faiths".
If it mirrors racial hatred laws, the maximum sentence for those found guilty will be seven years in prison.
The bill will apply to comments made in public or in the media, as well as through written material.
Freedom of speech
The government says the legislation is a response to the concerns of faith groups, particularly Muslims.
The Muslim Council of Britain has welcomed the move, arguing that the courts have already extended such protection to Sikh and Jewish people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075442.stm
Dhimmi Watch: UK: Freedom of speech in grave peril as religious hatred bill is unveiled
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Darwin's Sand Castle
by Thomas E. Brewton
08 June 2005
Hypotheses resting upon metaphysical speculation are not science.
My aim in this article is to amplify and perhaps make clearer a point noted in Begley Begs a Question. In that article I wrote:
Third, the insurmountable problem for the Darwinian evolution hypothesis is that it starts with a metaphysical value judgment. Science can deal only with examination, description, and explanation of directly observable physical phenomena. Darwinian evolution, by the terms of science itself, is not science, because it starts with pure speculation about First Causes, an area entirely off-limits to the physical sciences.
The point on which Darwinian evolution stands or falls is the origin of life itself. No scientist has ever come close to demonstrating how life came into existence on the earth. Darwin’s speculations, starting with square one, require that life came into existence purely by chance, through a combination of already existing natural substances and natural forces.
True science is a process of observing natural, physical phenomena and, from those observations, constructing an hypothesis to explain them. The scientist then devises experiments to test the validity of his hypothesis. If those experiments appear to confirm the hypothesis, the scientist submits his data and hypothesis to others in the scientific community, who will also examine relevant data and attempt to replicate the confirmatory experiments. If the scientific community’s work also supports the hypothesis, it becomes a generally accepted theory, until some other data come along to bring it into question, or a rival hypothesis is advanced.
But, in any case, every scientific theory must by definition always be no more than the best currently available explanation for physical phenomena, always vulnerable to revision or discrediting if new data and better theories come to light.
Darwinian evolution, in the protective circle of evolutionary biologists and liberal-socialist educators, somehow is to be considered exempt from all of those basic criteria of science, yet we are to accept it as “proven fact” and, by their definition, scientific. Darwin’s defenders consider that all discussion is foreclosed by the assertion that questioners “don’t understand science,” or less kindly, are ignorant Neanderthals.
Karl Popper, a theorist of scientific knowledge, wrote that a scientific hypothesis must be both provable and disprovable if it is to be considered true science. What he meant is that, if a proposition is scientific, other scientists must be able to construct tests that say the proposition will be true if; but it will be false if. Propositions for which such tests cannot be devised are not science; they are scientism. Such, for example, is the Marxian doctrine about the inevitable progress of history (in a Darwinian context read “social evolution"), culminating in world revolution and the triumph of the proletariat. Darwinian evolution, not surprisingly, was eagerly adopted by British Marxists as “proof” of their master’s scientistic doctrine.
Now, it can be observed that there is absolutely no way to devise a test to determine the validity or invalidity of the Darwinian evolution hypothesis. The processes hypothesized by Darwin take place with imperceptible gradualism, over tens of thousands of years. Darwinians can do no more than say that things might have occurred as they hypothesize. Evolution is a scientistic doctrine that must be accepted entirely on faith.
Darwin’s hypothesizing is more akin to the work of archaeologists than to scientists. In both cases, the only data are fragmentary, requiring an educated guess about the nature of what they represent. The difference is that the archaeologist knows that human nature has not changed one iota, Darwin not withstanding, in the entire span of human existence. Thus the archaeologist can make reasonable assumptions, based on known patterns of human behavior. Darwinian evolutionists are speculating about unknowable conditions and unknowable processes completely unrelated to human experience.
Darwin in On the Origin of Species admits that there are many serious gaps in his theory that can’t be proven, because there is no evidence to do so. He wrote in the concluding chapter, “.... this whole volume is one long argument… That many serious objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection, I do not deny.”
When, for example, Darwin considers the serious difficulty imposed by the sudden appearance of new vertebrate life forms in the Cambrian period fossils, with no intermediate forms between them and the earlier invertebrate life forms, he makes the supposition that such intermediate forms existed prior to the Cambrian period, but that they were somehow lost because of natural occurrences such as floods or earthquakes.
This, needless to say, is not a provable or disprovable proposition. It is merely a speculative thesis. And anyone surveying the literature of evolution will discover that it is typical, for the simple reason that there are very many such discrepancies. All of the explanations for such discrepancies are introduced by “we may speculate,” “we may assume,” or “might have been.”
A speculative doctrine for which every contradictory fact must be explained away by still another speculative possibility is a very rickety hypothetical structure. If we allow a theorist to explain every inconsistency by speculating that such-and-such might have been true, then UFOs and the existence of secret interplanetary visitors on earth have every bit as much validity as Darwinian evolution.
It will also be observed that, far from being willing to consider contradictory data to Darwin’s hypothesis, converts to evolution fiercely deny the right of anyone to challenge their doctrine of faith. They argue, sometimes very nastily among themselves, about variations on the basic hypothesis. But no non-believer may be permitted to question the fundamental faith itself.
This, of course, accounts for the sometimes vicious personal attacks by defenders of Darwin when school boards are asked to teach both sides of the story. Darwinians declare that only Darwin’s speculative thesis is science; only science should be taught in schools, therefore, case closed.
To be charitable, let’s note that this is simply human nature. Even in legitimate areas of scientific theory, practitioners who have invested years of study and work to support a given theory will react hostilely to any new hypothesis that challenges their firm convictions and undermines their professional status and financial sustenance.
But, in true science, eventually the new hypothesis will force its way into the attention of the scientific community. One such case is the now proved idea that some stomach ulcers are caused by pyloric bacteria. When a medical researcher first advanced that proposition, after his own exhaustive research and experimentation, the medical science community rejected it with scorn and derision. Any fool, they said, can see that bacteria can’t survive in the stomach’s gastric acids. Well, of course, we now know that they were wrong.
But, had some scientists not been willing to look into the hypothesis further, the world would have been deprived of a valuable tool to treat stomach ulcers. Darwinians, needless to say, are on the side of the scornful rejecters. As converts like the Wall Street Journal’s Ms. Begley usually say, Darwin has been “proved correct,” so there is no point in questioning his thesis.
Another basic tenet of science is that scientists do not deal with what are called First Causes, because First Causes are metaphysical concepts, by definition non-material and not subject to physical examination or experimental verification. Scientists say that philosophical concepts are “value judgments” that, right or wrong, are simply outside the scope of the physical sciences.
First Causes are, for example, the Bible’s description, in the Book of Genesis, of earth’s creation out of chaos by God. Or the New Testament’s Book of John, which, in a very Greek philosophical fashion, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In that sense, Word, or the Greek logos, means reason or knowledge, or in a more Biblical sense, the Mind of God; the universe exists in the mind of God, Who exists before and outside the universe, in a way altogether beyond direct human experience and comprehension.
This idea of earth existing as an extension of the mind of God is very much in keeping with the existence throughout the universe of uniform laws of science. The properties of mathematics are a similar phenomenon. Mathematics is a wholly mental thing that does not exist in any physical sense, yet its properties are exhibited in all things.
Marx’s scientistic doctrine rests upon an unknowable future. Darwin’s, on his unprovable speculations about the remote past.
The whole point of Darwin’s labors to produce his hypothesis of evolution was to combat what he called “the damnable” doctrine of Christianity. He wanted, as the first foundational block of his hypothesis, to confute the Genesis account of the Creation. In The Descent of Man he wrote, “I have at least, I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.”
Compare this to a true scientist examining physical data and seeking an explanation for observable phenomena. In contrast, Darwin started with the intent to carry on his family’s tradition of atheistic assaults on Christianity. This may be suitable fare for a politician or a political theorist, but hardly for a scientist.
Underlying the hypothesis of evolution are four completely unprovable, atheistic, First-Cause concepts. First, that the universe had no beginning; it simply always has existed as it is. Second, that the only influences on life in the universe are blind, random, physical conditions, to which life forms react unpredictably and spontaneously. Third, that life was not created by God, but just “happened” spontaneously when certain physical substances were exposed to just the right combinations of natural forces. Fourth, that every plant and animal life form now existing, or ever in existence, came from that single, original accidental life form.
If these four concepts are not correct, the whole of Darwinian evolutionary theory crumbles when the waters of reality flood its foundations of sand. We are then left with no more than what humans have known for millennia. Natural selection becomes nothing more than a fancy term for the knowledge that seeds planted in fertile ground, watered, and protected from birds, animals, and insects will produce larger and more plentiful crops than seeds cast on rocky ground; that it is possible to change characteristics of plants and animals within species by selective breeding or hybridization.
Darwin's Sand Castle
08 June 2005
Hypotheses resting upon metaphysical speculation are not science.
My aim in this article is to amplify and perhaps make clearer a point noted in Begley Begs a Question. In that article I wrote:
Third, the insurmountable problem for the Darwinian evolution hypothesis is that it starts with a metaphysical value judgment. Science can deal only with examination, description, and explanation of directly observable physical phenomena. Darwinian evolution, by the terms of science itself, is not science, because it starts with pure speculation about First Causes, an area entirely off-limits to the physical sciences.
The point on which Darwinian evolution stands or falls is the origin of life itself. No scientist has ever come close to demonstrating how life came into existence on the earth. Darwin’s speculations, starting with square one, require that life came into existence purely by chance, through a combination of already existing natural substances and natural forces.
True science is a process of observing natural, physical phenomena and, from those observations, constructing an hypothesis to explain them. The scientist then devises experiments to test the validity of his hypothesis. If those experiments appear to confirm the hypothesis, the scientist submits his data and hypothesis to others in the scientific community, who will also examine relevant data and attempt to replicate the confirmatory experiments. If the scientific community’s work also supports the hypothesis, it becomes a generally accepted theory, until some other data come along to bring it into question, or a rival hypothesis is advanced.
But, in any case, every scientific theory must by definition always be no more than the best currently available explanation for physical phenomena, always vulnerable to revision or discrediting if new data and better theories come to light.
Darwinian evolution, in the protective circle of evolutionary biologists and liberal-socialist educators, somehow is to be considered exempt from all of those basic criteria of science, yet we are to accept it as “proven fact” and, by their definition, scientific. Darwin’s defenders consider that all discussion is foreclosed by the assertion that questioners “don’t understand science,” or less kindly, are ignorant Neanderthals.
Karl Popper, a theorist of scientific knowledge, wrote that a scientific hypothesis must be both provable and disprovable if it is to be considered true science. What he meant is that, if a proposition is scientific, other scientists must be able to construct tests that say the proposition will be true if; but it will be false if. Propositions for which such tests cannot be devised are not science; they are scientism. Such, for example, is the Marxian doctrine about the inevitable progress of history (in a Darwinian context read “social evolution"), culminating in world revolution and the triumph of the proletariat. Darwinian evolution, not surprisingly, was eagerly adopted by British Marxists as “proof” of their master’s scientistic doctrine.
Now, it can be observed that there is absolutely no way to devise a test to determine the validity or invalidity of the Darwinian evolution hypothesis. The processes hypothesized by Darwin take place with imperceptible gradualism, over tens of thousands of years. Darwinians can do no more than say that things might have occurred as they hypothesize. Evolution is a scientistic doctrine that must be accepted entirely on faith.
Darwin’s hypothesizing is more akin to the work of archaeologists than to scientists. In both cases, the only data are fragmentary, requiring an educated guess about the nature of what they represent. The difference is that the archaeologist knows that human nature has not changed one iota, Darwin not withstanding, in the entire span of human existence. Thus the archaeologist can make reasonable assumptions, based on known patterns of human behavior. Darwinian evolutionists are speculating about unknowable conditions and unknowable processes completely unrelated to human experience.
Darwin in On the Origin of Species admits that there are many serious gaps in his theory that can’t be proven, because there is no evidence to do so. He wrote in the concluding chapter, “.... this whole volume is one long argument… That many serious objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection, I do not deny.”
When, for example, Darwin considers the serious difficulty imposed by the sudden appearance of new vertebrate life forms in the Cambrian period fossils, with no intermediate forms between them and the earlier invertebrate life forms, he makes the supposition that such intermediate forms existed prior to the Cambrian period, but that they were somehow lost because of natural occurrences such as floods or earthquakes.
This, needless to say, is not a provable or disprovable proposition. It is merely a speculative thesis. And anyone surveying the literature of evolution will discover that it is typical, for the simple reason that there are very many such discrepancies. All of the explanations for such discrepancies are introduced by “we may speculate,” “we may assume,” or “might have been.”
A speculative doctrine for which every contradictory fact must be explained away by still another speculative possibility is a very rickety hypothetical structure. If we allow a theorist to explain every inconsistency by speculating that such-and-such might have been true, then UFOs and the existence of secret interplanetary visitors on earth have every bit as much validity as Darwinian evolution.
It will also be observed that, far from being willing to consider contradictory data to Darwin’s hypothesis, converts to evolution fiercely deny the right of anyone to challenge their doctrine of faith. They argue, sometimes very nastily among themselves, about variations on the basic hypothesis. But no non-believer may be permitted to question the fundamental faith itself.
This, of course, accounts for the sometimes vicious personal attacks by defenders of Darwin when school boards are asked to teach both sides of the story. Darwinians declare that only Darwin’s speculative thesis is science; only science should be taught in schools, therefore, case closed.
To be charitable, let’s note that this is simply human nature. Even in legitimate areas of scientific theory, practitioners who have invested years of study and work to support a given theory will react hostilely to any new hypothesis that challenges their firm convictions and undermines their professional status and financial sustenance.
But, in true science, eventually the new hypothesis will force its way into the attention of the scientific community. One such case is the now proved idea that some stomach ulcers are caused by pyloric bacteria. When a medical researcher first advanced that proposition, after his own exhaustive research and experimentation, the medical science community rejected it with scorn and derision. Any fool, they said, can see that bacteria can’t survive in the stomach’s gastric acids. Well, of course, we now know that they were wrong.
But, had some scientists not been willing to look into the hypothesis further, the world would have been deprived of a valuable tool to treat stomach ulcers. Darwinians, needless to say, are on the side of the scornful rejecters. As converts like the Wall Street Journal’s Ms. Begley usually say, Darwin has been “proved correct,” so there is no point in questioning his thesis.
Another basic tenet of science is that scientists do not deal with what are called First Causes, because First Causes are metaphysical concepts, by definition non-material and not subject to physical examination or experimental verification. Scientists say that philosophical concepts are “value judgments” that, right or wrong, are simply outside the scope of the physical sciences.
First Causes are, for example, the Bible’s description, in the Book of Genesis, of earth’s creation out of chaos by God. Or the New Testament’s Book of John, which, in a very Greek philosophical fashion, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In that sense, Word, or the Greek logos, means reason or knowledge, or in a more Biblical sense, the Mind of God; the universe exists in the mind of God, Who exists before and outside the universe, in a way altogether beyond direct human experience and comprehension.
This idea of earth existing as an extension of the mind of God is very much in keeping with the existence throughout the universe of uniform laws of science. The properties of mathematics are a similar phenomenon. Mathematics is a wholly mental thing that does not exist in any physical sense, yet its properties are exhibited in all things.
Marx’s scientistic doctrine rests upon an unknowable future. Darwin’s, on his unprovable speculations about the remote past.
The whole point of Darwin’s labors to produce his hypothesis of evolution was to combat what he called “the damnable” doctrine of Christianity. He wanted, as the first foundational block of his hypothesis, to confute the Genesis account of the Creation. In The Descent of Man he wrote, “I have at least, I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.”
Compare this to a true scientist examining physical data and seeking an explanation for observable phenomena. In contrast, Darwin started with the intent to carry on his family’s tradition of atheistic assaults on Christianity. This may be suitable fare for a politician or a political theorist, but hardly for a scientist.
Underlying the hypothesis of evolution are four completely unprovable, atheistic, First-Cause concepts. First, that the universe had no beginning; it simply always has existed as it is. Second, that the only influences on life in the universe are blind, random, physical conditions, to which life forms react unpredictably and spontaneously. Third, that life was not created by God, but just “happened” spontaneously when certain physical substances were exposed to just the right combinations of natural forces. Fourth, that every plant and animal life form now existing, or ever in existence, came from that single, original accidental life form.
If these four concepts are not correct, the whole of Darwinian evolutionary theory crumbles when the waters of reality flood its foundations of sand. We are then left with no more than what humans have known for millennia. Natural selection becomes nothing more than a fancy term for the knowledge that seeds planted in fertile ground, watered, and protected from birds, animals, and insects will produce larger and more plentiful crops than seeds cast on rocky ground; that it is possible to change characteristics of plants and animals within species by selective breeding or hybridization.
Darwin's Sand Castle
TV Land's 'Happy Face' On Homosexuality Masks Tragic Lifestyle
By Ed Thomas and Jenni Parker
June 8, 2005
(AgapePress) - A pro-family website is warning television audiences that TV Land, a cable network that advertises a schedule of well-known, classic, family-friendly television shows, is airing a special that promotes the homosexual agenda this month. A recent e-mail alert from OneMillionDads.com notes that the show called "Inside TV Land: Tickled Pink," which celebrates homosexual undercurrents running through television history, is airing on TV Land throughout June.
TV Land is touting the "Tickled Pink" as the first program to look at how and why certain classic television shows "have hit the funny bone for generations of gay viewers." The show promises to celebrate a variety of TV shows and situation comedies that have commanded huge homosexual fan bases, and will "get the inside scoop from the talented people that created them."
Ed Vitagliano, a media researcher for the American Family Association, says although "Tickled Pink" does not promote the latest political issues of the pro-homosexual movement, the one-hour special does appear to have some disturbing objectives. One thing the show seems to do, he observes, is to hint that Hollywood has somehow "outsmarted" mainstream culture for decades by "sneaking" homosexual characters and motifs into television programs.
All this "underscores the fact that there really is an agenda in Hollywood amongst those who are homosexual," Vitagliano says. And its chief aim, he asserts, has apparently been "to kind of broach the subject [of homosexuality] to straight America in as subtle a way as possible with the hopes that they'll be more accepting of the political movement."
Upon watching "Tickled Pink," Vitagliano says it was "disturbing" to have Hollywood's homosexual agenda so solidly confirmed. "In some ways it was worse than I expected it to be," he notes, "because it really celebrated the fact that there were people in Hollywood who were trying to get a message across without the viewer really knowing it -- at least if they were straight."
In addition to focusing on actual "gay code" or subtext in some shows, Vitagliano says the TV Land special also examined how homosexuals watch many of the same shows popular with heterosexual viewers, yet interpret or experience them differently -- through a homosexual lens, so to speak. "Tickled Pink" suggests that popular shows such as "The Golden Girls," "Batman," or "Chips" that feature close same-sex friendships have often been viewed by homosexuals as affirmations of their lifestyles -- a fact the pro-family reviewer says he found sad.
"Even in TV shows that have nothing to do with homosexuality," Vitagliano notes, "apparently gays and lesbians have often latched onto any hint of a close relationship or spiritual intimacy between characters of the same sex and have read a homosexual subtext into it, desperate to find something -- anything -- that will give them a sense of normalcy." Or, in other cases, he adds, indications are that homosexuals often view shows about characters with supernatural powers and hidden abilities, such as "Bewitched" and "I Dream of Jeannie," and see characters who must keep secrets or lead hidden lives as somehow paralleling the "closeted" homosexual existence.
"I watched the show with a deep sense of sadness," Vitagliano notes. "It made me realize all the more how much Christians need to reach out to gays and lesbians, who are often extremely lonely people." Not that homosexuals are to be pitied, he adds, "any more than we are all to be pitied by God." But although many homosexuals may feel they are lacking intimacy and a sense of connection with people of their same sex, the AFA spokesman says, "What they really need is a relationship with Jesus."
While the pro-family media researcher found the revelations of "Tickled Pink" unsettling, he points out that many in the entertainment industry, including those interviewed for the show, appear to be pleased or even amused by the fact that Hollywood has managed to slip in pro-homosexual "subliminal messages" through its programming.
"The people on the show celebrated that -- they thought it was funny," Vitagliano says. Still, he insists, no matter how TV Land may try to "put a happy face" on homosexuality, that lonely lifestyle is obviously no laughing matter. According to OneMillionDads.com, "Tickled Pink" will be shown repeatedly on TV Land's schedule all this month, airing at least nine times.
News from Agape Press
June 8, 2005
(AgapePress) - A pro-family website is warning television audiences that TV Land, a cable network that advertises a schedule of well-known, classic, family-friendly television shows, is airing a special that promotes the homosexual agenda this month. A recent e-mail alert from OneMillionDads.com notes that the show called "Inside TV Land: Tickled Pink," which celebrates homosexual undercurrents running through television history, is airing on TV Land throughout June.
TV Land is touting the "Tickled Pink" as the first program to look at how and why certain classic television shows "have hit the funny bone for generations of gay viewers." The show promises to celebrate a variety of TV shows and situation comedies that have commanded huge homosexual fan bases, and will "get the inside scoop from the talented people that created them."
Ed Vitagliano, a media researcher for the American Family Association, says although "Tickled Pink" does not promote the latest political issues of the pro-homosexual movement, the one-hour special does appear to have some disturbing objectives. One thing the show seems to do, he observes, is to hint that Hollywood has somehow "outsmarted" mainstream culture for decades by "sneaking" homosexual characters and motifs into television programs.
All this "underscores the fact that there really is an agenda in Hollywood amongst those who are homosexual," Vitagliano says. And its chief aim, he asserts, has apparently been "to kind of broach the subject [of homosexuality] to straight America in as subtle a way as possible with the hopes that they'll be more accepting of the political movement."
Upon watching "Tickled Pink," Vitagliano says it was "disturbing" to have Hollywood's homosexual agenda so solidly confirmed. "In some ways it was worse than I expected it to be," he notes, "because it really celebrated the fact that there were people in Hollywood who were trying to get a message across without the viewer really knowing it -- at least if they were straight."
In addition to focusing on actual "gay code" or subtext in some shows, Vitagliano says the TV Land special also examined how homosexuals watch many of the same shows popular with heterosexual viewers, yet interpret or experience them differently -- through a homosexual lens, so to speak. "Tickled Pink" suggests that popular shows such as "The Golden Girls," "Batman," or "Chips" that feature close same-sex friendships have often been viewed by homosexuals as affirmations of their lifestyles -- a fact the pro-family reviewer says he found sad.
"Even in TV shows that have nothing to do with homosexuality," Vitagliano notes, "apparently gays and lesbians have often latched onto any hint of a close relationship or spiritual intimacy between characters of the same sex and have read a homosexual subtext into it, desperate to find something -- anything -- that will give them a sense of normalcy." Or, in other cases, he adds, indications are that homosexuals often view shows about characters with supernatural powers and hidden abilities, such as "Bewitched" and "I Dream of Jeannie," and see characters who must keep secrets or lead hidden lives as somehow paralleling the "closeted" homosexual existence.
"I watched the show with a deep sense of sadness," Vitagliano notes. "It made me realize all the more how much Christians need to reach out to gays and lesbians, who are often extremely lonely people." Not that homosexuals are to be pitied, he adds, "any more than we are all to be pitied by God." But although many homosexuals may feel they are lacking intimacy and a sense of connection with people of their same sex, the AFA spokesman says, "What they really need is a relationship with Jesus."
While the pro-family media researcher found the revelations of "Tickled Pink" unsettling, he points out that many in the entertainment industry, including those interviewed for the show, appear to be pleased or even amused by the fact that Hollywood has managed to slip in pro-homosexual "subliminal messages" through its programming.
"The people on the show celebrated that -- they thought it was funny," Vitagliano says. Still, he insists, no matter how TV Land may try to "put a happy face" on homosexuality, that lonely lifestyle is obviously no laughing matter. According to OneMillionDads.com, "Tickled Pink" will be shown repeatedly on TV Land's schedule all this month, airing at least nine times.
News from Agape Press
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Prohibition of Bible Reading at Recess
By Jim Brown
June 6, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Tennessee elementary school is being sued for barring a ten-year-old boy from reading his Bible during recess.
Knox County School officials have been served with a federal lawsuit alleging they violated the free-speech rights of fourth-grader Luke Whitson. The young student was recently prohibited from reading his Bible with a few friends on the playground at Karns Elementary School in Knoxville. The school claims recess is not "free time," but in fact instructional time -- and thus, the Bible reading during recess violates the so-called separation of church and state.
Whitson's attorney, Chuck Pope with the Alliance Defense Fund, says the school is trampling the boy's constitutional rights and should stop immediately.
"He was under the impression that they were telling him there he was something wrong with his Christian faith -- that there was something wrong with him reading his Bible," Pope explains. "He was, in fact, treated like a second-class citizen."
Prior to the suit being filed, the district contended in a response through the media that recess is not "free time." But ADF points out that recess has long been regarded as non-instructional time, during which students are free to read or discuss a wide range of literature -- including the Bible. Pope says his firm and his clients had hoped to avoid litigation.
"At the outset, our hope was to resolve the situation and have the school make a policy statement protecting Luke's constitutional rights, as well as those kids that are similarly situated to him, that children do have a right under the Constitution to read their Bible during free time," Pope states. "And ... that's an important emphasis -- this is non-instructional time."
The attorney explains that the school principal, Cathy Summa, ordered the students to end their Bible reading after one parent complained about the activity. Pope says as a result of the Whitson incident, other children at Karns Elementary have been afraid to even bring their Bibles to school.
Prohibition of Bible Reading at Recess Results in Lawsuit
June 6, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Tennessee elementary school is being sued for barring a ten-year-old boy from reading his Bible during recess.
Knox County School officials have been served with a federal lawsuit alleging they violated the free-speech rights of fourth-grader Luke Whitson. The young student was recently prohibited from reading his Bible with a few friends on the playground at Karns Elementary School in Knoxville. The school claims recess is not "free time," but in fact instructional time -- and thus, the Bible reading during recess violates the so-called separation of church and state.
Whitson's attorney, Chuck Pope with the Alliance Defense Fund, says the school is trampling the boy's constitutional rights and should stop immediately.
"He was under the impression that they were telling him there he was something wrong with his Christian faith -- that there was something wrong with him reading his Bible," Pope explains. "He was, in fact, treated like a second-class citizen."
Prior to the suit being filed, the district contended in a response through the media that recess is not "free time." But ADF points out that recess has long been regarded as non-instructional time, during which students are free to read or discuss a wide range of literature -- including the Bible. Pope says his firm and his clients had hoped to avoid litigation.
"At the outset, our hope was to resolve the situation and have the school make a policy statement protecting Luke's constitutional rights, as well as those kids that are similarly situated to him, that children do have a right under the Constitution to read their Bible during free time," Pope states. "And ... that's an important emphasis -- this is non-instructional time."
The attorney explains that the school principal, Cathy Summa, ordered the students to end their Bible reading after one parent complained about the activity. Pope says as a result of the Whitson incident, other children at Karns Elementary have been afraid to even bring their Bibles to school.
Prohibition of Bible Reading at Recess Results in Lawsuit
Monday, June 06, 2005
'Offensive' hospital bibles may be banned
By Nick Britten
03/06/2005
The century-old tradition of bibles in hospital bedside lockers could be ended in one health trust today after officials decided they might offend ethnic minorities.
Senior executives at the University of Leicester NHS Trust said it was also concerned that the books helped to spread the MRSA bacteria and it would rule on whether to remove them from wards.
The proposal angered Christians and Muslims who accused the hospital of political correctness.
Leicester has one of Britain's largest ethnic minority populations and the trust is concerned that the many non-Christian patients might be offended. A spokesman refused to say who suggested the ban, but said that she was "not aware" that any complaints about bibles had been made.
"Discussions are still in the early stages,'' she said. "Regardless of the outcome, patients can be reassured that religious texts will continue to be made available at hospitals through the chaplaincy."
Gideons International, the missionary organisation whose bibles are placed at patient bedsides, said the proposal was "sad" and "ridiculous". Iain Mair, an executive director, said the charity commissioned a surgeon and microbiologist to carry out a study on the risk of infection as soon as it learned that a ban was being considered.
"Doctors told us that to claim an MRSA risk is nonsense - and it is ridiculous to think having bibles in lockers discriminates against other religions," said Mr Mair.
"We have told the trust that we will put a note beside our Testament to advise patients who to contact if they wish a book of another faith."
The hospitals that would be affected if a ban were implemented are Leicester General, Leicester Royal Infirmary and Glenfield Hospital. Such a move would be especially embarrassing for Gideons, whose British headquarters is a few miles away in Lutterworth, Leics.
Mr Mair said: "The proposal is completely outrageous and the reasons put forward for justifying it, we believe, are totally without foundation.
He had not received "a single letter, e-mail or telephone call from any member of another faith to say that they have been offended by a hospital bible. Even other local faith leaders disagree with the proposal. The only thing I can think of is that this is motivated by political correctness.''
He said he felt sad that in a country that had been Christian for so long "we have got people that consider the Bible to be offensive".
Suleman Nagdi, of Leicestershire's Federation of Muslim Organisations, said: "This is a Christian country and it would be sad to see the tradition end."
Resham Singh Sandu, Sikh chairman of the Council of Faiths, said: "I don't think many ethnic minority patients would object to the Bible in a locker."
The Diocese of Leicester urged officials to vote against a ban when discussions - which will include the thoughts of the hospital chaplaincy, infection control, service equality and volunteer services - are held.
A diocese spokesman said: "There is a long tradition of bibles being readily available for those who are in need of spiritual as well as physical help.
"People need this consolation at hospital. For example, they may need to reach for a Bible in the middle of the night for comfort and solace.
"What right does the trust have to do this when Gideons has been putting bibles in hospitals and other institutions for more than 100 years?''
Telegraph | News | 'Offensive' hospital bibles may be banned
03/06/2005
The century-old tradition of bibles in hospital bedside lockers could be ended in one health trust today after officials decided they might offend ethnic minorities.
Senior executives at the University of Leicester NHS Trust said it was also concerned that the books helped to spread the MRSA bacteria and it would rule on whether to remove them from wards.
The proposal angered Christians and Muslims who accused the hospital of political correctness.
Leicester has one of Britain's largest ethnic minority populations and the trust is concerned that the many non-Christian patients might be offended. A spokesman refused to say who suggested the ban, but said that she was "not aware" that any complaints about bibles had been made.
"Discussions are still in the early stages,'' she said. "Regardless of the outcome, patients can be reassured that religious texts will continue to be made available at hospitals through the chaplaincy."
Gideons International, the missionary organisation whose bibles are placed at patient bedsides, said the proposal was "sad" and "ridiculous". Iain Mair, an executive director, said the charity commissioned a surgeon and microbiologist to carry out a study on the risk of infection as soon as it learned that a ban was being considered.
"Doctors told us that to claim an MRSA risk is nonsense - and it is ridiculous to think having bibles in lockers discriminates against other religions," said Mr Mair.
"We have told the trust that we will put a note beside our Testament to advise patients who to contact if they wish a book of another faith."
The hospitals that would be affected if a ban were implemented are Leicester General, Leicester Royal Infirmary and Glenfield Hospital. Such a move would be especially embarrassing for Gideons, whose British headquarters is a few miles away in Lutterworth, Leics.
Mr Mair said: "The proposal is completely outrageous and the reasons put forward for justifying it, we believe, are totally without foundation.
He had not received "a single letter, e-mail or telephone call from any member of another faith to say that they have been offended by a hospital bible. Even other local faith leaders disagree with the proposal. The only thing I can think of is that this is motivated by political correctness.''
He said he felt sad that in a country that had been Christian for so long "we have got people that consider the Bible to be offensive".
Suleman Nagdi, of Leicestershire's Federation of Muslim Organisations, said: "This is a Christian country and it would be sad to see the tradition end."
Resham Singh Sandu, Sikh chairman of the Council of Faiths, said: "I don't think many ethnic minority patients would object to the Bible in a locker."
The Diocese of Leicester urged officials to vote against a ban when discussions - which will include the thoughts of the hospital chaplaincy, infection control, service equality and volunteer services - are held.
A diocese spokesman said: "There is a long tradition of bibles being readily available for those who are in need of spiritual as well as physical help.
"People need this consolation at hospital. For example, they may need to reach for a Bible in the middle of the night for comfort and solace.
"What right does the trust have to do this when Gideons has been putting bibles in hospitals and other institutions for more than 100 years?''
Telegraph | News | 'Offensive' hospital bibles may be banned
Friday, June 03, 2005
Parents Protest School's Plan to Show Pro-Homosexual Video to Kids
By Jim Brown
June 3, 2005
(AgapePress) - Today, a high school in Hawaii plans to show students a video that promotes homosexuality as normal and natural, a decision made despite the fact that several parents have raised objections to school administrators over the film's content and message.
Officials at King Kekaulike High School on the island of Maui say they intend to show the film It's Elementary as a way to teach tolerance toward homosexuals. However, several parents are opposed to the school's plan to show the film in isolation, saying it not only legitimizes homosexual lifestyles but also denies that ex-homosexuals exist.
In addition to proceeding with plans to show the controversial film, the school administrators also ignored a simple request from parents that another video called I Do Exist be shown to supplement It's Elementary. Featured in I Do Exist is a man who, as a teen, was interviewed for the other film but who has since left the homosexual lifestyle.
Estelle Wilkerson is a member of the group of concerned parents who raised objections over the school's planned showing of the pro-homosexual film. "We expressed our opinion," she says. "We offered another option. We even offered to come up with a committee that could be at the schools to supervise and help, like a security team of parents, just so that this harassment that, as you say, is happening on campus will stop, if in fact it is -- at least to the extent that they are making it seem [so that] it warrants this film."
However, since the school appears to have swept the parents concerns aside and is proceeding with the showing of It's Elementary to the students. Wilkerson admits that she and the other parents in the group are "feeling a little frustrated." The reason, she notes, is because, "when we're at the meetings, they express how wonderful it is for parents to be [involved] and how much they appreciate our presence and our concern," she says. However, the Maui mom adds, "Obviously, our opinion and what we have to say is unimportant, because we're still having this film."
The protesting parents feel the film scheduled for screening at King Kekaulike High School is both one-sided and outdated, since it features a homosexual teen who is now an adult and no longer involved in homosexual activity and also ignores the existence of former homosexuals like him. The parents group is concerned that by showing It's Elementary without the balancing perspective of a documentary like I Do Exist, the school will be presenting students with an incomplete and decidedly one-sided view of homosexuality.
Hawaii Parents Protest School's Plan to Show Pro-Homosexual Video to Kids
News from Agape Press
June 3, 2005
(AgapePress) - Today, a high school in Hawaii plans to show students a video that promotes homosexuality as normal and natural, a decision made despite the fact that several parents have raised objections to school administrators over the film's content and message.
Officials at King Kekaulike High School on the island of Maui say they intend to show the film It's Elementary as a way to teach tolerance toward homosexuals. However, several parents are opposed to the school's plan to show the film in isolation, saying it not only legitimizes homosexual lifestyles but also denies that ex-homosexuals exist.
In addition to proceeding with plans to show the controversial film, the school administrators also ignored a simple request from parents that another video called I Do Exist be shown to supplement It's Elementary. Featured in I Do Exist is a man who, as a teen, was interviewed for the other film but who has since left the homosexual lifestyle.
Estelle Wilkerson is a member of the group of concerned parents who raised objections over the school's planned showing of the pro-homosexual film. "We expressed our opinion," she says. "We offered another option. We even offered to come up with a committee that could be at the schools to supervise and help, like a security team of parents, just so that this harassment that, as you say, is happening on campus will stop, if in fact it is -- at least to the extent that they are making it seem [so that] it warrants this film."
However, since the school appears to have swept the parents concerns aside and is proceeding with the showing of It's Elementary to the students. Wilkerson admits that she and the other parents in the group are "feeling a little frustrated." The reason, she notes, is because, "when we're at the meetings, they express how wonderful it is for parents to be [involved] and how much they appreciate our presence and our concern," she says. However, the Maui mom adds, "Obviously, our opinion and what we have to say is unimportant, because we're still having this film."
The protesting parents feel the film scheduled for screening at King Kekaulike High School is both one-sided and outdated, since it features a homosexual teen who is now an adult and no longer involved in homosexual activity and also ignores the existence of former homosexuals like him. The parents group is concerned that by showing It's Elementary without the balancing perspective of a documentary like I Do Exist, the school will be presenting students with an incomplete and decidedly one-sided view of homosexuality.
Hawaii Parents Protest School's Plan to Show Pro-Homosexual Video to Kids
News from Agape Press
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Parents Protest Pro-Homosexual Posters on Public School Campus
By Jim Brown
June 2, 2005
(AgapePress) - Parents in Troy, Michigan, are vehemently denouncing a school district's decision to hang several copies of a poster they claim promotes homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.
Two years ago, controversy erupted at Troy High School when, at the request of the campus homosexual group, English teacher Sandra Altemann put up a poster in her classroom that reads, "Gay people are everyday people." Afterward, despite the objections of parents who feel the poster promotes an unacceptable lifestyle, Principal Larry Boehms recently allowed four more of the pro-homosexual posters to go up at the school.
Tony Cruz, a Christian father of two daughters in the school district, wants the posters removed from classrooms during school hours. "They have no place in the school," he contends, "and as a matter of fact, according to the Equal Access statute, a club can lose its sponsorship if a teacher sponsors the dogma of that club during school hours. And that applies to Christian clubs, it applies to gay clubs -- it applies to any club in between."
The posters are distributed by the Royal Oak-based Affirmations Gay/Lesbian Community Center. School officials claim they are not trying to promote a certain lifestyle by hanging the posters, but that they are merely demonstrating tolerance. Parents like Cruz, however, feel the posters are a prime example of the intolerance of pro-homosexual activism.
The Michigan father says the posters represent "a very aggressive and, in my opinion, very mean-spirited way of trying to take minor children and imbue them with the mindset that, 'Hey, you will not only tolerate these people; you will celebrate, enjoy and promote this lifestyle. And even though you're one of those freaks who is not into your own gender, that's okay. We'll tolerate you, too.'"
The school officials' complicity with homosexual activists in hanging the "Gay people" posters at Troy High is only part of "just an absolutely terrible thing that they're doing with young children today," Cruz asserts. He says if the school were not promoting the homosexual agenda, surely it would not be allowing a pro-homosexual group from another city to place posters on its campus.
Mich. Parents Protest Pro-Homosexual Posters on Public School Campus
News from Agape Press
June 2, 2005
(AgapePress) - Parents in Troy, Michigan, are vehemently denouncing a school district's decision to hang several copies of a poster they claim promotes homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.
Two years ago, controversy erupted at Troy High School when, at the request of the campus homosexual group, English teacher Sandra Altemann put up a poster in her classroom that reads, "Gay people are everyday people." Afterward, despite the objections of parents who feel the poster promotes an unacceptable lifestyle, Principal Larry Boehms recently allowed four more of the pro-homosexual posters to go up at the school.
Tony Cruz, a Christian father of two daughters in the school district, wants the posters removed from classrooms during school hours. "They have no place in the school," he contends, "and as a matter of fact, according to the Equal Access statute, a club can lose its sponsorship if a teacher sponsors the dogma of that club during school hours. And that applies to Christian clubs, it applies to gay clubs -- it applies to any club in between."
The posters are distributed by the Royal Oak-based Affirmations Gay/Lesbian Community Center. School officials claim they are not trying to promote a certain lifestyle by hanging the posters, but that they are merely demonstrating tolerance. Parents like Cruz, however, feel the posters are a prime example of the intolerance of pro-homosexual activism.
The Michigan father says the posters represent "a very aggressive and, in my opinion, very mean-spirited way of trying to take minor children and imbue them with the mindset that, 'Hey, you will not only tolerate these people; you will celebrate, enjoy and promote this lifestyle. And even though you're one of those freaks who is not into your own gender, that's okay. We'll tolerate you, too.'"
The school officials' complicity with homosexual activists in hanging the "Gay people" posters at Troy High is only part of "just an absolutely terrible thing that they're doing with young children today," Cruz asserts. He says if the school were not promoting the homosexual agenda, surely it would not be allowing a pro-homosexual group from another city to place posters on its campus.
Mich. Parents Protest Pro-Homosexual Posters on Public School Campus
News from Agape Press
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Missing Links
Is there really evidence that man descended from apes?
Many people honestly believe that the ancestry of mankind has been mapped faithfully and nearly completely. They have heard about "missing links," and regard them as scientific proof for man's evolution from primates. However, in truth, no ancestor for man has ever been documented. The "missing links" are still missing. Here is a summary of facts relating to some of the most well known fossil discoveries.
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.
Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).
Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
Pithecanthropus (Java man) - now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.
Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.
Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).
Currently fashionable ape-men
These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.
Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.
Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.
Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.
There is no fossil proof that man is the product of evolution. Could it be that the missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist.
"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7).
Missing Links - ChristianAnswers.Net
Many people honestly believe that the ancestry of mankind has been mapped faithfully and nearly completely. They have heard about "missing links," and regard them as scientific proof for man's evolution from primates. However, in truth, no ancestor for man has ever been documented. The "missing links" are still missing. Here is a summary of facts relating to some of the most well known fossil discoveries.
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.
Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).
Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
Pithecanthropus (Java man) - now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.
Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.
Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).
Currently fashionable ape-men
These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.
Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.
Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.
Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.
There is no fossil proof that man is the product of evolution. Could it be that the missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist.
"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7).
Missing Links - ChristianAnswers.Net
Baptist leader beheaded in Bangladesh
Monday, May 23, 2005
By ABP staff
JALALPUR, Bangladesh - A Baptist lay pastor has been beheaded in Bangladesh, the second Christian leader to lose his life in that country in a year, according to a Christian news organization.
Dulal Sarkar, 35, was attacked as he returned home from discussing his faith with local villagers, reported Compass Direct, which tracks incidents of Christian persecution. One source later identified the assailants as a group of 10 local Muslim extremists. After reporting the incident, Sarkur's wife, mother and five children have been forced to move from place to place in fear for their lives.
According to local Christians, three arrests have been made, but the remaining seven alleged attackers, who reportedly have ties to the Jamaat-e-Islami political party, are still at large. They fear the political influence of Jamaat-e-Islami may prevent the case from going to court, Compass Direct reported.
Meanwhile, Sarkur's widow has asked a Christian orphanage to take three of their five children because she cannot afford to support them.
The incident is the second beheading in a year, the news service said. Abdul Gani, a prominent Christian and physician, reportedly was decapitated by a gang in the district of Jamalpur as he returned home from work in September 2004. Gani was a counsel member of the Bangladesh Baptist Fellowship.
In 2003 another Christian leader was murdered by a group of eight men who attacked him in his home. Christian evangelist Hridoy Roy was stabbed repeatedly after being tied "crucifixion style" to his bed. Roy was known for showing the Jesus film and others about the life of Christ. Muslim neighbors reportedly had warned him to stop.
Bangladesh has suffered from religious disharmony since 1971, when the nation was split from Pakistan. The country is approximately 83 percent Muslim and 16 percent Hindu. Buddhists and Christians make up the remaining 1 percent. Islam was declared the official state religion in 1998.
The current government is a coalition of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and three other Islamic parties. The third largest party, Jamaat-e-Islami, reportedly wants to make Bangladesh an entirely Islamic nation.
Baptist leader beheaded in Bangladesh : Monday, May 23, 2005
By ABP staff
JALALPUR, Bangladesh - A Baptist lay pastor has been beheaded in Bangladesh, the second Christian leader to lose his life in that country in a year, according to a Christian news organization.
Dulal Sarkar, 35, was attacked as he returned home from discussing his faith with local villagers, reported Compass Direct, which tracks incidents of Christian persecution. One source later identified the assailants as a group of 10 local Muslim extremists. After reporting the incident, Sarkur's wife, mother and five children have been forced to move from place to place in fear for their lives.
According to local Christians, three arrests have been made, but the remaining seven alleged attackers, who reportedly have ties to the Jamaat-e-Islami political party, are still at large. They fear the political influence of Jamaat-e-Islami may prevent the case from going to court, Compass Direct reported.
Meanwhile, Sarkur's widow has asked a Christian orphanage to take three of their five children because she cannot afford to support them.
The incident is the second beheading in a year, the news service said. Abdul Gani, a prominent Christian and physician, reportedly was decapitated by a gang in the district of Jamalpur as he returned home from work in September 2004. Gani was a counsel member of the Bangladesh Baptist Fellowship.
In 2003 another Christian leader was murdered by a group of eight men who attacked him in his home. Christian evangelist Hridoy Roy was stabbed repeatedly after being tied "crucifixion style" to his bed. Roy was known for showing the Jesus film and others about the life of Christ. Muslim neighbors reportedly had warned him to stop.
Bangladesh has suffered from religious disharmony since 1971, when the nation was split from Pakistan. The country is approximately 83 percent Muslim and 16 percent Hindu. Buddhists and Christians make up the remaining 1 percent. Islam was declared the official state religion in 1998.
The current government is a coalition of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and three other Islamic parties. The third largest party, Jamaat-e-Islami, reportedly wants to make Bangladesh an entirely Islamic nation.
Baptist leader beheaded in Bangladesh : Monday, May 23, 2005
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution?
By Tom Barrett (05/30/05)
Would you be surprised to know that millions of scientists around the world do not blindly accept Darwin's THEORY of evolution? Would it shock you to know that many of these professors and researchers are not religious, but they embrace the theory of Intelligent Design, which holds that our intricate universe could not have come about by chance? Would it blow you away to find that Albert Einstein was one of them?
It is well documented that these famous scientists strongly disagreed on this important question. It is also well known that they, along with all credible scientists throughout history, strongly believed that all theories should be heard, all should be tested, and none should be ridiculed. This is the only way that science itself can be credible.
Yet many politically active scientists today are desperately maneuvering to censor any mention of the theory of Intelligent Design in our schools, textbooks and media. Their accomplices in this blatant censorship are liberal politicians, atheists, most of the media and the national teacher's union (the Nation Education Association or NEA).
Darwin's theory is just that - a theory. It has never been proven, and cannot be proven. But the censors mentioned above want Darwin's THEORY taught as FACT, and they want no other theories even mentioned.
Einstein is just one of millions of prominent scientists over the years that have supported the theory of Intelligent Design, but he is perhaps the best known. In an article in "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium," (see LINK below) Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
In the last paragraph of his essay, "The World as I See It," Einstein wrote, "I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence - as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." While Einstein referred to the Designer as "Reason" rather than "God," his writings make it very clear that he believed that an intelligent Designer crafted our universe and all that is within it.
On the other hand, Darwin postulated that all life somehow crawled out of primordial ooze and miraculously became differentiated as mammals, reptiles, fish, fowl and so on. It seems that such a far-fetched theory would require much more faith than simply believing that God did what He said He did inGenesis: He created everything according to His plan.
On page 293 of his book, "The Origin of the Species," Darwin stated that his THEORY would ultimately be proven by the fossil record. This has never happened. If the theory were true, at least some of the millions of fossils discovered by scientists would have provided a "missing link", a fossil that was clearly part one species as well as part another. Although there have been several attempts over the years to fake evidence to prove Darwin's theory, the "missing link" has never been found.
Scientists in China have discovered ancient bacteria that cast doubt on Darwin's theory, and have published papers stating this. One of them, Jian Yuan Chan, said, "In China, we can criticize Darwin, but we cannot criticize the government. In the US you can criticize the government, but you cannot criticize Darwin."
The issue of Intelligent Design came to national attention recently because of an ongoing debate in Dover, Pennsylvania. (See LINK, "What's the Big Secret?" below.) The school board in Dover announced a year ago that high-school biology teachers would inform their students that other theories existed besides evolution. A New York Times article states, "A statement is read to biology students asserting that Darwin's theory 'is not a fact,' urging them 'to keep an open mind' and pointing them to the seminal book on intelligent design, 'Of Pandas and People.' Students are allowed to leave class when it is read."
Of course Dover liberals are incensed. They want to hide from the children the fact that other valid theories are accepted by large portions of the scientific community. They are not satisfied that students are allowed to leave class during the short statement. They want the discussion to be held (if at all) in humanities classes. Of course this would send a clear signal to students that the theory is unscientific; otherwise, why would it not be discussed in science classes?
It should be noted that many proponents of Intelligent Design are not religious; they are simply intellectually honest scientists who see the flaws in evolutionary theory. Without calling the Designer "God", they recognize that the complex organisms that populate our universe could not have resulted from anything other than systematic design by an intelligent being. Unfortunately, these scientists are hounded by their evolutionist peers, often losing their jobs because of their beliefs.
Scientists who would censor or intimidate others with differing theories are not worthy of the title "Scientist." A Wall Street Journal Editorial (see LINK below) recently exposed the decades-long persecution of scientists who support the theory of Intelligent Design (ID). It used as an example a scientist at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, Richard Steinberg. Steinberg, who holds two PhD's in biology, was the editor of a Museum publication that printed an article on ID which had been reviewed by scientific peers prior to publication. He was demoted and a concerted effort is underway to ruin his career.
Steinberg's immediate supervisor was asked by top Museum officials, "Is he religious?", as if being religious was something of which he should be ashamed. "Is he a right-wing conservative?" One's political beliefs should not be an issue in the scientific community. But since the great majority of faculty members at US universities are far-left liberals, it is always an issue.
The Editorial concludes, "Darwinism.is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches - like the National Museum of Natural History."
The Journal Editor got it right. Darwinism stems from dialectical materialism, the philosophy of Marxism. Communism/socialism is a religion that demands blind faith and obedience. Darwinism is an offshoot of that false religion. It, too, demands blind faith, and its disciples persecute anyone who believes differently.
Our children deserve better than being brainwashed by their schools into believing a false religion is based on fact. They deserve to be told that evolution is nothing more than a theory that has never been proven, and allowed to consider alternatives to that theory.
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution? - Tom Barrett
What's the Big Secret?
http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16042
Wall Street Journal Editorial Exposes Witch Hunt in Scientific Community
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1242
Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
http://www.ideacenter.org
Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Evolution
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/tools/questions.php3
A Finely-Tuned Universe: What Are the Odds?
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/127/story_12717_1.html
The World As I See It- An Essay by Albert Einstein
http://leiwen.tripod.com/worldisi.htm
Newsweek: Intelligent Design, "A NEW Idea"! Or is it?
http://www.alcaidecafe.com/archives/000136.html
Science, Philosophy and Religion, a Symposium
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/Einstein2b.html
Would you be surprised to know that millions of scientists around the world do not blindly accept Darwin's THEORY of evolution? Would it shock you to know that many of these professors and researchers are not religious, but they embrace the theory of Intelligent Design, which holds that our intricate universe could not have come about by chance? Would it blow you away to find that Albert Einstein was one of them?
It is well documented that these famous scientists strongly disagreed on this important question. It is also well known that they, along with all credible scientists throughout history, strongly believed that all theories should be heard, all should be tested, and none should be ridiculed. This is the only way that science itself can be credible.
Yet many politically active scientists today are desperately maneuvering to censor any mention of the theory of Intelligent Design in our schools, textbooks and media. Their accomplices in this blatant censorship are liberal politicians, atheists, most of the media and the national teacher's union (the Nation Education Association or NEA).
Darwin's theory is just that - a theory. It has never been proven, and cannot be proven. But the censors mentioned above want Darwin's THEORY taught as FACT, and they want no other theories even mentioned.
Einstein is just one of millions of prominent scientists over the years that have supported the theory of Intelligent Design, but he is perhaps the best known. In an article in "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium," (see LINK below) Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
In the last paragraph of his essay, "The World as I See It," Einstein wrote, "I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence - as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." While Einstein referred to the Designer as "Reason" rather than "God," his writings make it very clear that he believed that an intelligent Designer crafted our universe and all that is within it.
On the other hand, Darwin postulated that all life somehow crawled out of primordial ooze and miraculously became differentiated as mammals, reptiles, fish, fowl and so on. It seems that such a far-fetched theory would require much more faith than simply believing that God did what He said He did inGenesis: He created everything according to His plan.
On page 293 of his book, "The Origin of the Species," Darwin stated that his THEORY would ultimately be proven by the fossil record. This has never happened. If the theory were true, at least some of the millions of fossils discovered by scientists would have provided a "missing link", a fossil that was clearly part one species as well as part another. Although there have been several attempts over the years to fake evidence to prove Darwin's theory, the "missing link" has never been found.
Scientists in China have discovered ancient bacteria that cast doubt on Darwin's theory, and have published papers stating this. One of them, Jian Yuan Chan, said, "In China, we can criticize Darwin, but we cannot criticize the government. In the US you can criticize the government, but you cannot criticize Darwin."
The issue of Intelligent Design came to national attention recently because of an ongoing debate in Dover, Pennsylvania. (See LINK, "What's the Big Secret?" below.) The school board in Dover announced a year ago that high-school biology teachers would inform their students that other theories existed besides evolution. A New York Times article states, "A statement is read to biology students asserting that Darwin's theory 'is not a fact,' urging them 'to keep an open mind' and pointing them to the seminal book on intelligent design, 'Of Pandas and People.' Students are allowed to leave class when it is read."
Of course Dover liberals are incensed. They want to hide from the children the fact that other valid theories are accepted by large portions of the scientific community. They are not satisfied that students are allowed to leave class during the short statement. They want the discussion to be held (if at all) in humanities classes. Of course this would send a clear signal to students that the theory is unscientific; otherwise, why would it not be discussed in science classes?
It should be noted that many proponents of Intelligent Design are not religious; they are simply intellectually honest scientists who see the flaws in evolutionary theory. Without calling the Designer "God", they recognize that the complex organisms that populate our universe could not have resulted from anything other than systematic design by an intelligent being. Unfortunately, these scientists are hounded by their evolutionist peers, often losing their jobs because of their beliefs.
Scientists who would censor or intimidate others with differing theories are not worthy of the title "Scientist." A Wall Street Journal Editorial (see LINK below) recently exposed the decades-long persecution of scientists who support the theory of Intelligent Design (ID). It used as an example a scientist at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, Richard Steinberg. Steinberg, who holds two PhD's in biology, was the editor of a Museum publication that printed an article on ID which had been reviewed by scientific peers prior to publication. He was demoted and a concerted effort is underway to ruin his career.
Steinberg's immediate supervisor was asked by top Museum officials, "Is he religious?", as if being religious was something of which he should be ashamed. "Is he a right-wing conservative?" One's political beliefs should not be an issue in the scientific community. But since the great majority of faculty members at US universities are far-left liberals, it is always an issue.
The Editorial concludes, "Darwinism.is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches - like the National Museum of Natural History."
The Journal Editor got it right. Darwinism stems from dialectical materialism, the philosophy of Marxism. Communism/socialism is a religion that demands blind faith and obedience. Darwinism is an offshoot of that false religion. It, too, demands blind faith, and its disciples persecute anyone who believes differently.
Our children deserve better than being brainwashed by their schools into believing a false religion is based on fact. They deserve to be told that evolution is nothing more than a theory that has never been proven, and allowed to consider alternatives to that theory.
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution? - Tom Barrett
What's the Big Secret?
http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16042
Wall Street Journal Editorial Exposes Witch Hunt in Scientific Community
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1242
Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
http://www.ideacenter.org
Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Evolution
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/tools/questions.php3
A Finely-Tuned Universe: What Are the Odds?
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/127/story_12717_1.html
The World As I See It- An Essay by Albert Einstein
http://leiwen.tripod.com/worldisi.htm
Newsweek: Intelligent Design, "A NEW Idea"! Or is it?
http://www.alcaidecafe.com/archives/000136.html
Science, Philosophy and Religion, a Symposium
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/Einstein2b.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)