Amid the hoots at Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry for saying there were “gaps” in the theory of evolution, the strongest evidence for Darwinism presented by these soi-disant rationalists was a 9-year-old boy quoted in The New York Times.
After his mother had pushed him in front of Perry on the campaign trail and made him ask if Perry believed in evolution, the trained seal beamed at his Wicked Witch of the West mother, saying, “Evolution, I think, is correct!”
That’s the most extended discussion of Darwin’s theory to appear in the mainstream media in a quarter-century. More people know the precepts of kabala than know the basic elements of Darwinism.
There’s a reason the Darwin cult prefers catcalls to argument, even with a 9-year-old at the helm of their debate team.
Darwin’s theory was that a process of random mutation, sex and death, allowing the “fittest” to survive and reproduce, and the less fit to die without reproducing, would, over the course of billions of years, produce millions of species out of inert, primordial goo.
The vast majority of mutations are deleterious to the organism, so if the mutations were really random, then for every mutation that was desirable, there ought to be a staggering number that are undesirable.
Otherwise, the mutations aren’t random, they are deliberate — and then you get into all the hocus-pocus about “intelligent design” and will probably start speaking in tongues and going to NASCAR races.
We also ought to find a colossal number of transitional organisms in the fossil record — for example, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.)
But that’s not what the fossil record shows. We don’t have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the “trade secret” of paleontology. (Lots of real scientific theories have “secrets.”)
If you get your news from the American news media, it will come as a surprise to learn that when Darwin first published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, his most virulent opponents were not fundamentalist Christians, but paleontologists.
Unlike high school biology teachers lying to your children about evolution, Darwin was at least aware of what the fossil record ought to show if his theory were correct. He said there should be “interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.”
But far from showing gradual change with a species slowly developing novel characteristics and eventually becoming another species, as Darwin hypothesized, the fossil record showed vast numbers of new species suddenly appearing out of nowhere, remaining largely unchanged for millions of years, and then disappearing.
Darwin’s response was to say: Start looking! He blamed a fossil record that contradicted his theory on the “extreme imperfection of the geological record.”
One hundred and fifty years later, that record is a lot more complete. We now have fossils for about a quarter of a million species.
But things have only gotten worse for Darwin.
Thirty years ago (before it was illegal to question Darwinism), Dr. David Raup, a geologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, said that despite the vast expansion of the fossil record: “The situation hasn’t changed much.”
To the contrary, fossil discoveries since Darwin’s time have forced paleontologists to take back evidence of evolution. “Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record,” Raup said, “such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”
The scant fossil record in Darwin’s time had simply been arranged to show a Darwinian progression, but as more fossils were discovered, the true sequence turned out not to be Darwinian at all.
And yet, more than a century later, Darwin’s groupies haven’t evolved a better argument for the lack of fossil evidence.
To explain away the explosion of plants and animals during the Cambrian Period more than 500 million years ago, Darwiniacs asserted — without evidence — that there must have been soft-bodied creatures evolving like mad before then, but left no fossil record because of their squishy little microscopic bodies.
Then in 1984, “the dog ate our fossils” excuse collapsed, too. In a discovery The New York Times called “among the most spectacular in this century,” Chinese paleontologists discovered fossils just preceding the Cambrian era.
Despite being soft-bodied microscopic creatures — precisely the sort of animal the evolution cult claimed wouldn’t fossilize and therefore deprived them of crucial evidence — it turned out fossilization was not merely possible in the pre-Cambrian era, but positively ideal.
And yet the only thing paleontologists found there were a few worms. For 3 billion years, nothing but bacteria and worms, and then suddenly nearly all the phyla of animal life appeared within a narrow band of five million to 10 million years.
Even the eye simply materializes, fully formed, in the pre-Cambrian fossil record.
Jan Bergstrom, a paleontologist who examined the Chinese fossils, said the Cambrian Period was not “evolution,” it was “a revolution.”
So the Darwiniacs pretended they missed the newspaper that day.
Intelligent design scientists look at the evidence and develop their theories; Darwinists start with a theory and then rearrange the evidence.
These aren’t scientists. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true so that they can explain to themselves why they are here, without God. (It’s an accident!)
Any evidence contradicting the primitive religion of Darwinism — including, for example, the entire fossil record — they explain away with non-scientific excuses like “the dog ate our fossils.”
Many days passed before God finally completed the masterpiece of His creation. For nine months, the soul of Mary had given form to her virginal body, and the hour of her happy birth approached. As the suffocating Palestinian summer neared its end, the mellowing sun poured abundant torrents of golden light on the opulent plain of Samaria, ripening the rich orchards of autumn fruit. On a magnificent September day, with nature adorned in radiant beauty, the most Holy Virgin came into the world in the white-walled city of Nazareth.
She was probably born in the same house where the great mystery of the Incarnation later took place and where Jesus spent most of His childhood and youth in work and prayer. The angels did not acclaim the coming of the glorious Queen with hymns of joy as they later did the birth of the Savior. Invisible to the eyes of mortal men, the angels considered it an honor to mount guard around the humble crib over which Saints Joachim and Anne lovingly watched. The prophecy of Isaias had come to pass. The root of Jesse, ten centuries removed, had sprouted a new branch. On this same branch in but a few years more would blossom the eternal Flower, the Incarnate Word.
The Holy Name of Mary
The Everything Prayer to Our Lady
Her divine Son would soon appear representing a new dawn of hope upon a world plunged for four thousand years into the darkness of pain and death.
The day the Queen of Heaven was born ranks as one of the most beautiful in history since it announced to condemned mankind the long-awaited time of liberation. In commemorating this great event, the Church bursts forth in its enthusiasm: “Thy nativity, O Virgin Mother of God,” sings the Church in its liturgy, “has announced joy to the whole world”—Nativitas tua, Dei Genitrix Virgo, gaudium annuntiavit universo mundo.
Indeed, we seem to forget in what horrible distress the world lay prostrate before the coming of Christ.
The sin of our first parents had borne the fruit of death. Until the coming of the Savior, the curse of the Almighty lay heavily upon sinful humanity. Adam had eaten of the forbidden fruit in the wild hope of becoming like God. With terrible irony, God stripped him of his magnificent privileges and reduced him to extreme misery. Thus, the ancient world was founded upon oppression of the weak and disregard for human dignity. The greater part of mankind was subject to the torments of slavery. Even Rome, the proud bearer of civilization, considered the multitude of its slaves as but an immense herd destined for slaughter. Indeed, masters had the power to send their slaves to their deaths solely to amuse themselves. The refined patricians of the Imperial City would sometimes use these poor souls as fodder for the salt-water eels they raised. Nothing satisfied their gluttony more than these delicious marine eels, fattened on human blood.
The distress of souls was even more acute. Adam had supposed that he could do without God. He unappreciatively spurned his Sovereign Benefactor. God, in return, withdrew from His creature. He did not abandon mankind altogether, however, but spoke to him at rare intervals, announcing the future coming of a virgin who would crush the head of the serpent under her immaculate heel. He raised up prophets from among the people, yet He hid Himself within His inaccessible light.
Communication and trust is key among parents and teachers on a child’s education. But in one function of a school the teacher’ s responsibility breaks down. It breaks down at Donahue Academy of Ave Maria on student’s assignments and homework. Specifically, it breaks down with the Assistant Head of School Dr. Marc Snyder of Donahue Academy of Ave Maria, who enforces the policy on assignments and homework.
Parents have the primary responsibility to educate their children. This is about as catholic as one can get. Where the responsible line can be broken is when the school is included in the chain of responsibility in a catholic setting. Here is where there can be un-catholic rules and standards applied. Parents and students are intact; that is, parents are involved, and the student is trying.
However, the school responds in an inordinate way. The school negates its responsibility in communication and trust by not reporting feedback on a student’s assignment and homework. The school believes that its only the student’s responsibility to write the assignment, and therefore, tell the parents on the assignment. Children aren’t as mature as teachers and parents and can and will get it wrong sometimes.
According to the policy the school has a third-party online education management system called RenWeb which lists all the student’s assignments, completed homework, disciplinary actions, grades, etc. – practically the whole student’s educational record. Parents login to RenWeb’s login page and discover it isn’t even activated.
Relating to assignments and homework RenWeb should contain a teacher’s assignments and due dates. Easily the parents verify the assignments, not through the student, but through RenWeb. Here the chain of responsibility continues. Where it breaks is when RenWeb doesn’t report the assignments. Either the teacher or the school is at fault. Dr. Marc Snyder is at fault for not continuing the responsibility.
The precise break in communication and trust is the relegation of responsibility to the student and not to the teacher for insuring that the parents get the assignment first and accurately. Rigidity in catholic education is really unnecessary because it’s like unjust war today. It’s unnecessary because in a technological world where communication is constant and ubiquitous war is unnecessary. So is educational rigidity.
Roughly one-third of my 2007 No. 1 New York Times best-seller, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” is an attack on liberals’ creation myth, Darwinian evolution. I presented the arguments of all the luminaries in the field, from the retarded Richard Dawkins to the brilliant Francis Crick, and disputed them.
But apparently liberals didn’t want to argue back.
Despite Matthews’ obsessive fixation on the topic, manifested by his constantly asking elected Republicans if they believe in evolution, in a one-hour interview with me on “Godless” — the very book that is chockablock with attacks on Darwinism — Matthews didn’t ask me a single question about the subject.
No liberal did. Matthews doesn’t even know what evolution is.
Just a year later, at a 2008 Republican presidential candidates’ debate, Matthews asked for a show of hands of who believed in evolution. No discussion permitted! That might allow scientific facts, rather than schoolyard taunts, to escape into the world.
Evolution is the only subject that is discussed exclusively as a “Do you believe?” question with yes-or-no answers. How about conservative journalists start putting mikes in front of liberal candidates and demanding, “Do you believe in the Bible — yes or no?” “Is an unborn baby human — yes or no?” and “Do you believe teenagers should have sex — yes or no?”
This is the flash mob method of scientific inquiry. Liberals quickly surround and humiliate anyone who disagrees with them. They are baffled when appeals to status (which would work on them) don’t work on everyone else.
Now that Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry has said there are “gaps” in the theory of evolution — or “gas” as The New York Times originally reported, before issuing a correction — we’re in for another round of fact-free mocking of fundamentalist nuts.
In fact, however, it has not been advances in Christianity (which is pretty much settled), but in science that have completely discredited Darwin’s theory of evolution.
This week, we will consider one small slice of the mountain of scientific evidence disproving this mystery religion from the Victorian age.
Most devastating for the Darwiniacs were advances in microbiology since Darwin’s time, revealing infinitely complex mechanisms requiring hundreds of parts working together at once — complex cellular structures, DNA, blood-clotting mechanisms, molecules, and the cell’s tiny flagellum and cilium.
Darwin’s theory was that life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which by random mutation, sex and death, would pass on the desirable mutations, and this process, over billions of years, would lead to the creation of new species.
The (extremely generous) test Darwin set for his theory was this: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Thanks to advances in microscopes, thousands of such complex mechanisms have been found since Darwin’s day. He had to explain only simple devices, such as beaks and gills. If Darwin were able to come back today and peer through a modern microscope to see the inner workings of a cell, he would instantly abandon his own theory.
It is a mathematical impossibility, for example, that all 30 to 40 parts of the cell’s flagellum — forget the 200 parts of the cilium! — could all arise at once by random mutation. According to most scientists, such an occurrence is considered even less likely than John Edwards marrying Rielle Hunter, the “ground zero” of the impossible.
Nor would each of the 30 to 40 parts individually make an organism more fit to survive and reproduce, which, you will recall, is the lynchpin of the whole contraption.
As Michael Behe, biochemist and author of “Darwin’s Black Box,” explains, even a mechanism as simple as a three-part mousetrap requires all three parts to be working together at once. Otherwise, you don’t get a mousetrap that catches half as many mice — and thus might win a survival of the fittest competition — you don’t get a mousetrap at all.
The more we have learned about molecules, cells and DNA — a body of knowledge some refer to as “science” — the more preposterous Darwin’s theory has become. DNA is, as Bill Gates says, “like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” (Plus DNA doesn’t usually crash when you’re right in the middle of reproducing.)
Evolution fanatics would rather not be called on to explain these complex mechanisms that Darwin himself said would disprove his theory.
Instead they make jokes about people who know the truth. They say that to dispute evolution means you must believe man walked with dinosaurs.
Galileo’s persecutors probably had some good guffaws about him believing in Fred Flintstone.
This is why the brighter Darwiniacs end up sounding like Scientologists in order to cling to their mystery religion.
Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA, hypothesized that highly intelligent extraterrestrials sent living cells to Earth on an unmanned spaceship, a theory he set forth in his 1981 book, “Life Itself.”
Thus was God narrowly averted!
But Crick’s solution obviously begs the question: How did the highly intelligent extraterrestrials evolve?
Harvard population biologist Richard Lewontin said the Darwiniacs tolerate “unsubstantiated just-so stories” of evolution and ignore “the patent absurdity of some of its constructs” because they are committed to coming up with a theory that excludes God. “We cannot,” Lewontin said, “allow a divine foot in the door.”
Maybe if we called the Intelligent Designer “Louis Vuitton” to avoid frightening the Godphobics, they’d finally admit the truth: Modern science has disproved Darwinian evolution.
The leader of the Collier County Teachers’ Union Jonathan Tuttle thinks the 3% retirement reduction should be offset by an increase of 1% in salary, a step up in schedule for eligibles, a 2% bonus every year for non-eligibles, and special adjustments for those with advanced credentials.
Taxpayer money is taxpayer money; it doesn’t change to no taxpayer money when a new state law goes into effect. This offset proposal goes nowhere because it’s illogical. The teachers are having their pay reduced net by the 3% retirement reduction to save taxpayer money. One doesn’t do a go-around to make up from another fund to net the same pay before the retirement reduction.
Teachers sometimes make the math come out in their favor. That’s what they’re good it – teaching math. But it’s not business math, and it has nothing to do with saving money and the time value of money. Considering the Collier County Public Schools is the largest employer in the County, the offset proposal equates to the status quo. Now, isn’t that correct, Mr. Tuttle?
Commissioner Hiller is correct again. The advertising of the civic redistricting responsibility lacks. She stated,
“At the district 2 public meeting, my understanding was that there were only about 20 or so residents that attended. This does not reflect a lack of voter interest,” she wrote. “This reflects ineffective notice and inconsiderate timing.”
Yes, on inconsiderate timing, there is no considerate timing. Yes, on ineffective notice, there is no effective notice.
The people don’t fully understand the process and the timing. One guesses that many don’t even know that Collier County is one of those five “covered jurisdiction” counties of 67 counties in Florida that falls under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that any change in political redistricting must be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice. Justice review demands at least 60 days. Yours truly reported previously that the Supervisor of Elections Jennifer Edwards hasn’t tried to update that federal law. Why doesn’t she?
What must be done? Well, here’s one question. Since the census reported that the Hispanic population increased at least 25%, is that ethnicity, not race as David Weeks incorrectly called, properly represented in its appropriate district according to the new demographical information? If not, then the lines should be redrawn appropriately, and, therefore, the same mistake won’t endure another 10 years. Without using a magnifying class here, one guesses that Northeast Collier County, Golden Gate, Golden Gate Estates, north and south, and East Naples should be redrawn carefully.
But, of course, that won’t be done. Not because the people don’t want to be involved, but because the commissioners don’t want to lead and inform the people to be involved, except Commissioner Hiller. Collier County management is too entrenched is in its old, tiresome way.
Any Collier County citizen who would like to join the author in redistricting District 5, just email JamesPatGuerrero@gmail.com . This group can save taxpayer money that the County pays to the law firm of Bond, Schoeneck & King as its professional redistricting consultant. This group shall meet online at scheduled times and resolve most of the issues electronically. Time is running out.
La estrategia que Estados Unidos viene implementando desde hace tiempo para eliminar a Al Qaeda, defendida desde el principio por numerosos especialistas militares y de Inteligencia, se ha enfocado en los tres últimos años en la eliminación de sus principales líderes, algo que ha conseguido con un éxito más que sobresaliente. Ahora, tras la muerte de Osama bin Laden, esta estrategia persigue la eliminación de unos 20 líderes terroristas adicionales, cuya desaparición pondrá a la red terrorista al borde de una derrota definitiva.
Por esta razón, el Pentágono y la CIA están incrementando las operaciones para cazar a estos líderes destacados de Al Qaeda, con especial énfasis en los que se ocultan en Pakistán, Afganistán, Yemen, Irak y Somalia, aunque no únicamente. Son estas operaciones especiales, conjuntas entre fuerzas especiales y agentes de Inteligencia, las que están derrotando a la red terrorista y descabezando sus células. La clave de la estrategia es mantener la presión e intensificar estas operaciones, ya que tenemos la victoria al alcance de la mano y la oportunidad de desactivar a Al Qaeda como una amenaza elevada para este país.
La estrategia denominada “decapitación”, cuyo objetivo es la eliminación o captura de los principales líderes terroristas, está rindiendo unos resultados extraordinarios justo en los momentos más oportunos y ha causado daños reales y definitivos a Al Qaeda, rompiendo su estrategia de ataque de una forma significativa y sustancial. Esto quiere decir en pocas palabras que la perspectiva real de una derrota estratégica de la red terrorista y su desmantelamiento logístico, es una realidad y un objetivo en vías de cumplirse.
En suma, casi diez años después del ataque del 11/S, que se conmemorará en septiembre, Estados Unidos está muy próximo a derrotar a Al Qaeda y pasar página de la guerra contra el terrorismo a una nueva fase con un escenario diferente, no exento de riesgos, pero definitivamente distinto al que hemos combatido hasta ahora.
James Nava es un consultor veterano de inteligencia y un prestigioso escritor, autor de “Lobo gris” y “El agente protegido”. wwww.jamesnava.com