BLOG

Upright of course. A chow mix named "Faith," born without front legs, is inspiring many as she goes on tour with her agent, Mike Maguire. This dog has learned to adapt to its difficult situation by walking like its owner, bipedally.

I must clarify this is not an example of dog evolution, just resourcefulness. After watching this video of the two-legged dog walk, I've decided the most remarkable thing about this chow is surely the very thing the videographers didn't show us: the marking of territory. That, after all, must be accomplished on one leg, no?

Theology and Steak has a great post refuting theistic evolution, the belief that God used evolution to create the universe and life on earth. Summed up simply, it's a way of accepting the whole of mainstream science, and throwing God in without actually attributing anything specific (or heaven forbid, supernatural) to Him. The author of the post points out that among the Presbyterian Church USA, 60 to 90 percent of members and clergy believe "evolutionary theory is compatible with the idea of God as Creator." He also gives excerpts of a statement signed by some 11,000 churches indicating the stories of the Bible need not be taken literally.

Last year I had someone ask me to make a place in my blogroll for "evolutionary creationists" if I remember the term correctly. His position was apparently similar to theistic evolution (TE), but he preferred the emphasis on "creation". I didn't find the distinction important enough to warrant a change of terms. Incidentally, I don't have a place in my blogroll yet for theistic evolutionists, though perhaps some of them would categorize themselves with old earth creationists or ID theorists. (Some TE advocates are firmly opposed to the ID movement, however.) Like theistic evolutionists, ID theorists discredit the randomness of Darwinism, but unfortunately don't discredit evolution, but instead believe the process of evolution reflects design. God guided the process, but what he did no one really knows. As much as I admire ID theorists, I'm disappointed they stop short of their potential.

Last week while criticizing Darwinists who try to force people to choose between science and religion, Casey Luskin at the Discovery Institute blog accused creationists of promoting "a false dichotomy that forces supporters of evolution to abandon religion." Luskin sounds just like one of the churchgoers mentioned above who believe evolution and the biblical record are completely compatible. What he and so many others apparently haven't given two minutes of thought to is that the Bible teaches that the physical death of humans was a result of sin--not a precursor to it. Why was Jesus' death effective on our behalf? Because, being sinless, he didn't deserve to die in the first place. Not so if death is merely an artifact of evolution.

Luskin is wrong--the dichotomy isn't false. Creationists don't ask evolutionists to abandon religion, but we do challenge them to be theologically consistent. Otherwise the doctrines our faith rests on will turn as wishy-washy as the times.

In most species, faithfulness is a fantasy? So former NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer can hardly be blamed? Well, such a conclusion isn't surprising when you view man as just another genus in the great tree of life, bearing no other privileges or responsibilities beyond that granted by his advanced intellect, superiority, and knack for expressing deep feelings for others, even if those feelings are themselves a fantasy. Only a pure-blooded Darwinist would draw conclusions about human ethics by observing the lifestyles of fish, termites, and primates; and unfortunately there are enough of them out there (Darwinists, I mean) to raise the question of whether Spitzer is being judged unfairly--whether, in fact, it's some of those New York laws that aren't quite in step with what Mother Nature intended.

 There's absolutely no indication that God ever intended animals to remain monogamous. But that was his intention for humans, as Jesus said, "from the beginning."

Darwinists are still a bit mad over The March of the Penguins, I'm certain.

For the past few decades, concerned analysts have been complaining about overpopulation around the globe. Though some complain the U.S. is overpopulated, many point especially to undeveloped and developing nations as culprits in the "plight" of overpopulation. They blame babies for widespread poverty instead of implicating government corruption or the weaknesses of particular cultures.

These kinds of worries have ushered legal and convenient abortion services to countries where overpopulation is feared--including China, where couples who bear more than one child are forced to pay a fine or abort the baby.

Now the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, one of the world's most influential groups for reproductive science, has begun a program to provide fertility treatment for women in developing nations. The Society has already opened two IVF services in Africa.

What should we make of this? Is the Society truly interested in seeing more children born in developing and/or undeveloped countries? I'd call that a welcome change, but somehow I'm skeptical that the motives here are so pure.

But according to a Nigerian professor quoted in the news release linked above:

"In poor resource areas the need for infertility treatment in general, and IVF in particular, is great. The inability to have children can create enormous problems, particularly for the woman. She might be disinherited, ostracised, accused of witchcraft, abused by local healers, separated from her spouse, or abandoned to a second-class life in a polygamous marriage."

 Sounds like an altruistic venture, but what happened to the previous worries about overpopulation? And will these fertility clinics also provide abortions?

The Southern Baptist Convention is taking a less skeptical approach to global warming. Convention president Frank Page has signed "A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change,” an initiative that was signed by two previous presidents of the SBC. Speaking for the SBC, Jonathan Merrit of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest says his conviction regarding planet care came when “I learned that God reveals himself through Scripture and in general through his creation, and when we destroy God’s creation, it’s similar to ripping pages from the Bible.”

What do you think? Is destroying creation like ripping pages from the Bible?

 There are some controversial new theories in the news: One is about the "Hobbit" fossils from Flores (it seems there will never be agreement about them); the latest idea is that they were diseased cretins--cretinism being a form of hyperthyroidism, when it doesn't refer to stupid, insensitive people.  There is also a new view on the Grand Canyon, suggesting it is millions of years older than the current long-age ideas say, prompting outcries from geologists who are criticizing Science for publishing such a thing. As long as Science doesn't mind stirring geologists up, why not publish a young earth perspective on the Canyon, say something by Steve Austin? We can hope.

The earliest known photo of Helen Keller has been released. View it at the link.

Could the Phoenicians have brought Hebrew culture--and the Ten Commandments--to North America thousands of years ago? Watch this video and see what you think. 

Yes! Anyone agree? This excerpt is from a story that appeared in the Wall Street Journal about the Daylight Savings Time controversy in Indiana, my home state. The time change was instituted in the '70s to save energy, but according to this study, more energy is lost than saved overall. Why not do away with it and save us all a lot of circadian trauma each year?

 Indiana's change of heart gave University of California- Santa Barbara economics professor Matthew Kotchen and Ph.D. student Laura Grant a unique way to see how the time shift affects energy use. Using more than seven million monthly meter readings from Duke Energy Corp., covering nearly all the households in southern Indiana for three years, they were able to compare energy consumption before and after counties began observing daylight-saving time. Readings from counties that had already adopted daylight-saving time provided a control group that helped them to adjust for changes in weather from one year to the next.

Their finding: Having the entire state switch to daylight-saving time each year, rather than stay on standard time, costs Indiana households an additional $8.6 million in electricity bills. They conclude that the reduced cost of lighting in afternoons during daylight-saving time is more than offset by the higher air-conditioning costs on hot afternoons and increased heating costs on cool mornings.