The Georgia Right to Life PAC released a press release yesterday afternoon endorsing Mike Huckabee for president, snubbing National Right to Life's pick, Fred Thompson.
The first paragraph is verrrry interesting....
The mission of Georgia Right to Life PAC is... pleased to endorse Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee for the 2008 Presidential primary. We appreciate and respect the pro-life positions of all pro-life candidates. We commend Rep. Duncan Hunter, Dr. Alan Keyes and Rep. Tom Tancredo for their strong pro-life positions, but find that Governor Mike Huckabee is the only candidate which qualified under Georgia Right to Life PAC guidelines. We examined three factors in our decision to endorse Gov. Mike Huckabee: the positions of the candidates on the life issues, their records on the life issues and their ability to win.
GRTL PAC left a few names off its list of commended pro-life candidates, the most telling being NRLC's endorsed candidate! Wow.
There's more going on behind the scenes. NRLC is actively opposing Georgia's Personhood Amendment, now working its way through the legislature, which makes these paragraphs in the release rich with coded message and a genteel southern slap of NRLC's face:
Gov. Huckabee responded to our inquiry of his position on the life issues by stating, "... I support the Georgia Personhood Amendment. I also support, and have consistently done so, the Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution."...
As an affiliate of National Right to Life, we give grateful recognition for the role they play in protecting the unborn. "We want to acknowledge their leadership and thank them for allowing individual states to do what they believe is best for their state. Under normal circumstances we would communicate their Presidential endorsement to our 225,000 households." said Bryan Lash, PAC Director for GRTL. "While we appreciate their leadership and support, we believe that Gov. Huckabee is the strongest and most effective pro-life candidate in this race," continues Lash. "Passing a Personhood Amendment here in Georgia is our key issue in achieving our objective to extend the protections of the law to all 'persons' both born and unborn. Support of a candidate who ushered a similar amendment through his own state speaks volumes to us. Mr. Huckabee's recent surge in the polls, we believe, demonstrates that he is the pro-life movement's best hope in defeating pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani...."
This is major. Read the entire release below.
Also recall Iowa Right to Life has decided not to endorse Thompson but to go neutral on this race.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 30, 2007
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Contact: Daniel Becker, President
email@example.com | (770) 667-3777
Contact: Bryan Lash, PAC Director
Georgia Right to Life PAC Endorses Mike Huckabee for President
LAWRENCEVILLE, GA - The mission of Georgia Right to Life PAC (GRTL PAC) is to endorse and support candidates for public office who have a proven commitment to the sanctity of human life and will be a strong and effective voice for the unborn. We are pleased to endorse Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee for the 2008 Presidential primary. We appreciate and respect the pro-life positions of all pro-life candidates. We commend Rep. Duncan Hunter, Dr. Alan Keyes and Rep. Tom Tancredo for their strong pro-life positions, but find that Governor Mike Huckabee is the only candidate which qualified under Georgia Right to Life PAC guidelines. We examined three factors in our decision to endorse Gov. Mike Huckabee: the positions of the candidates on the life issues, their records on the life issues and their ability to win.
Gov. Huckabee responded to our inquiry of his position on the life issues by stating, "In keeping with my consistent support for life, I believe in the 'one exception' clause for the life of the mother and I support the Georgia Personhood Amendment. I also support, and have consistently done so, the Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution."
Gov. Huckabee has a proven track record of solid pro-life legislation during his terms as governor of Arkansas. He is noted for having passed a state "Human Life Amendment" which says that "the policy of Arkansas is to protect the life of every unborn child from conception to birth." Arkansas Amendment 68 will take effect the moment that Roe vs. Wade is reversed. He is especially supportive of our efforts here in Georgia, to promote the passage of H.R. 536, the Paramount Right to Life Amendment (www.personhood.net).
As an affiliate of National Right to Life, we give grateful recognition for the role they play in protecting the unborn. "We want to acknowledge their leadership and thank them for allowing individual states to do what they believe is best for their state. Under normal circumstances we would communicate their Presidential endorsement to our 225,000 households." said Bryan Lash, PAC Director for GRTL. "While we appreciate their leadership and support, we believe that Gov. Huckabee is the strongest and most effective pro-life candidate in this race," continues Lash. "Passing a Personhood Amendment here in Georgia is our key issue in achieving our objective to extend the protections of the law to all 'persons' both born and unborn. Support of a candidate who ushered a similar amendment through his own state speaks volumes to us. Mr. Huckabee's recent surge in the polls, we believe, demonstrates that he is the pro-life movement's best hope in defeating pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani. When elected, Mike Huckabee will work hard to establish our goal of restoring respect and effective legal protection to all innocent human beings, from the moment of fertilization until natural death."
I love Mike Huckabee.
I disagree with him on almost everything, but I feel that his political views are the product of his personal convictions - not like so many of the other "pander bears."
I also firmly believe that a sense of humor is the sexiest feature any man can have.
Anyway, if I were going to vote for any of the right-wing Fascists, it would be Mike Huckabee.Posted by: Laura at December 1, 2007 10:31 AM
But Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution. (?) He seems like a nice guy and all, but how could you not believe in evolution?
I thought Ron Paul was pro-life, why isn't he getting any endorsements?Posted by: prettyinpink at December 1, 2007 11:28 AM
I cannot put into words how glad this makes me to see (finally) someone with the backbone to stand up for what is right. To stand up for those who do not have a voice. WOW....Thank you Thank you Thank you.
Mike Huckabee is surging each and every day. He will be the GOP candidate because of people like you. I believe that more today than ever.
Keep fighting for truth and know that there are thousands upon thousands who are in agreement with you.
GO MIKE GO....WH '09Posted by: MD at December 1, 2007 11:32 AM
And how come whether or not you believe in evolution has anything to do with being President? Somehow I missed that as a qualification.
You'd just think that someone with so good an education would use common sense.
I'm also concerned that he might not be keen to fund a lot of scientific endeavors.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 1, 2007 11:39 AM
The non-belief of evolution is simple: If it were true, my ancestors would either be a ball of gas, or rocks.
It's more complicated than that, but whatever. I have learned that in debating evolution most creationists won't ever budge, no matter how many facts are presented to them.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 1, 2007 11:47 AM
If you are interested.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 1, 2007 11:51 AM
Evolution....The unproven theory.
I do understand that for those who choose not to believe that God Created that it's their choice. And you are right pretty, we will not budge because there is a deep belief system in us that will not allow us to believe anything contrary to God's Word. That is not to say that I despise you as a person but just disagree with your theory and respect your right to believe the Lie of Evolution. Like Mike Huckabee says so eloquently, Whether God chose to do create this earth in 6 literal days or 6000 years, we still believe He did it. And He could have chosen to do it through evolution but the Bible does not say that. Anyway....I do respect your opinion and THATS what makes the United States of America Great!
Mike Huckabee....WH '09Posted by: MD at December 1, 2007 11:59 AM
I won't budge because God's word never changes, but science does!
Anyway, I just love Huckabee's dimples (not to mention his sense of humor)...he's refreshing!!!
The GRTL nailed this one!Posted by: AB Laura at December 1, 2007 12:04 PM
1. "Evolution....The unproven theory."
First of all, nothing is "proven" in science. Second of all, it wouldn't be a theory if it did not have a huge body of evidence behind it and fulfill several qualifications. Pretty much the entire scientific community is with me on this.
2"we will not budge because there is a deep belief system in us that will not allow us to believe anything contrary to God's Word."
The Catholic Church does not believe evolution is contrary to God's Word.
3."That is not to say that I despise you as a person but just disagree with your theory and respect your right to believe the Lie of Evolution."
I'm not an atheist by the way.
"Like Mike Huckabee says so eloquently, Whether God chose to do create this earth in 6 literal days or 6000 years, we still believe He did it."
Since when did evolution say that God didn't create the universe?
"And He could have chosen to do it through evolution but the Bible does not say that."
But the story does lend itself to an allegorical interpretation. Seems odd to me that there would be literal fruit of knowledge and a literal snake talking to two people in a literal garden of eden. Why wouldn't the fruit be representative? How about the way that things were often written as parable and allegories to get their point across?
"Anyway....I do respect your opinion and THATS what makes the United States of America Great!"
Yup that's true.
I have to go shopping feel free to comment and I'll get to them later.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 1, 2007 12:06 PM
I am not an expert on debate in this arena. There are many who will not move one way or the other on the issues on both sides of the isle.
In your earlier post you mentioned Ron Paul. I assume you are supporting him. I could and would like to support RP because I am with him on most of the issues except when it comes to foreign policy. Even taking that out of the equation RP has a problem communicating his ideas in a way that would causes people to unite behind him. I think this is his one major problem, his language and delivery of his message isolates people. If he could come across a little more inviting and not be so harsh sounding and dogmatic all the time it may play better on the American People....just my observation.
Thats why I support Mike Huckabee for President. He is the best communicator in the field of candidates and his views are in line with mine on all the issues. We need someone who can communicate to people and understand the needs that come before him. He is a uniter not a divider. He will bring this country together in a way that has never before been done.
Anyway.....I appreciate the debate.
Mike Huckabee.....WH '09
I can't agree with you more about Ron Paul! Boy, whenever he's debating, I have to turn the volume down on my T.V.! Huckabee projects his ideas very eloquently, which I feel is a tremendous attribute when it comes to speaking with foreign leaders. Could you just imagine Ron Paul discussing anything with emotion with a foreign leader? I shutter to think of the consequences!
Gravity is just a theory too. I'm pretty sure though, if you jump off a cliff, you'll still die.
Also, evolution has been observed. Definitively.Posted by: Erin at December 1, 2007 1:23 PM
Erin, you can't win. It is a matter ideology to creationists rather than science. Which is why I"m confused as to why they are trying to say they are scientists....anyway...Posted by: prettyinpink at December 1, 2007 2:16 PM
WHOO-HOO! I am a pro-lifer living and working in Georgia .... and I am so proud that Georgia RTL got this one right!!!
We are holding a huge rally at our state capital on Jan 14th, the first day of the '08 legislative session, to show our support of the Ga Human Life Ammendment (HR536). It's being called the "Let them Live Rally". Slowly the word is getting out in Georgia that this is the most important issue before our state congress in 2008.
Incidently, there is a press conference being held here in GA today as well by Troy Newman from Operation Rescue .... regarding the "truth truck" driver who was arrested last week in violation of his First Ammendment rights. He was held for several days and the county officials damaged / vandalized the truck while it sat in impound. Jill, I keep waiting for you to cover this story .... we need to get some people on this. What the Gwinnett County Police did to this guy is clear a constitutional violation. I sent you some emails about it last week....
Ron Paul is my token Republican candidate.
I kinda like him because he isn't afraid to tell it like it is and he is pretty strong on the pro-life issue.
I do get where you are coming from, though.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 1, 2007 2:36 PM
To both "liberal" Democrats (who are concerned) and "conservative" Republicans (who are naive):
Why have "pro-life conservative" Republicans been in control of all three branches of the U.S. government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) as well as maintained a majority of the state governorships from 2000 - 2006 and abortion not ended?
There is only one candidate who is actually willing to DO something about ending abortion in this country...and not just TALK about the issue - like candidates in both parties are inclined to do:
Posted by: scott
at December 1, 2007 2:39 PM
If you are truly "pro-life" you have only one candidate who will actually DO something about the tragedy of killing unborn babies - they have but one advocate: Ron Paul.
boy there are going to be a lot of disappointed republicans next Fall. Thank god.Posted by: Hal at December 1, 2007 2:46 PM
Ron Paul isn't strictly pro-life. He "doesn’t think the government has any business protecting marriage and human life." And, in the values voters debate he voted against pursuing or supporting legislation that would have prevented Terry Schiavo from being dehydrated to death. Check out an article about him in the blog of Randy Alcorn (author of numerous pro-life books including "Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments") here: www.randyalcorn.blogspot.com
Go for Mike Huckabee!Posted by: MCAnthony at December 1, 2007 3:26 PM
Erin and PIP
I don't think that anyone's theory of creation really matters in the office of President, but I resent the implication that being a creationist means you are uneducated and backward.
Micro-evolution has been observed. Squirrels turn to different colors when put in different environments, but they are still squirrels. Foxes who are bread to become docile become as docile as housepets, but they are still foxes. No one species has ever been recorded to become another species (macro-evolution). This is the foundation of evolution as leading to creation. The "missing link" has never been found, no matter how many different fossils have been dug up and identified.
Gravity is not a theory, it is a proven fact. You can test it in a lab. You cannot test macro-evolution in a lab. It is more along the lines of retro-grade motion--the theory that planets made slight backward loops in their progression in order to bolster the theory that the earth was the center of the solar system.
I am so excited that Huckabee has support from the larger pro-life community. He has my vote based on his stand on social issues including abortion and immigration. I'd be behind him even if he was an evolutionist.
EHPosted by: EH at December 1, 2007 4:15 PM
Pip and I had a discussion of perception and belief in regards to evolution science. I think it is strange when folks say they "believe" in science. You don't need faith to understand science. Either you understand the theory, ideas etc. or you don't. It is not a faith issue.Posted by: hippie at December 1, 2007 4:16 PM
America hasn't elected a senator to the white house in over 45 years. They have all been governors. Richardson was a great governor in New Mexico but he is way behind. Romney and Huckabee can both campaign on their strong track records on health care and education and the environment in their respective states. None of the democrat senators have such a record to trumpet. They were never in charge of anything let alone anything successful.Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2007 4:26 PM
ALAN KEYES is waaaaaay better when it comes to having Godly policies than Huckabee is. Check out the videos on his site or on my blog.
That a group would use "the ability to win" as part of their criteria for endorsing a candidate is disgusting. Its the same reasoning that Giuliani supporters use in their arguments to promote Giuliani as a presidentail nominee for the Republican party since they argue that he is the only one "electable" enough to run against Hitlery Clinton or B. Hussein Obama and win.Posted by: zeke13:19 at December 1, 2007 4:35 PM
"No one species has ever been recorded to become another species (macro-evolution)."
Nope. Speciation is observed alllll the time. See here:
"The "missing link" has never been found, no matter how many different fossils have been dug up and identified."
"Gravity is not a theory, it is a proven fact."
Just like evolution, gravity is both fact and theory. If you need to look up what (scientific) theory means, wikipedia does a good job explaining it.
" You cannot test macro-evolution in a lab."
Evolution is certainly testable, although "testing in a lab" is not a requirement for science. Also, people make this distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution, but really, evolution is a continuum. Whatever distinction has been made is not distinct at all.
"It is more along the lines of retro-grade motion--the theory that planets made slight backward loops in their progression in order to bolster the theory that the earth was the center of the solar system."
Sure... but I'm not sure that the slight backward loops is a theory itself. I could be wrong though. Theories require very specific criteria. I'd like to learn more if it is true, I just remember it as an observation that led to the downfall of the geocentric model of the solar system.
" I think it is strange when folks say they "believe" in science."
This is often a vernacular phrase, such as "believing it's true" or "thinking it's true" as opposed to not. Evolution is kinda weird because most nonscientists are willing to accept what most scientists accept as true at the time. Except when they find it threatening (which evolution should not be.)
"It is not a faith issue."
I absolutely agree. Not accepting evolution to me in general indicates a lack of understanding. Not dumb, EH. Just a misunderstanding.
Posted by: prettyinpink
at December 1, 2007 4:53 PM
Here are some videos to watch--I'm off to do some work. Let me know what you think. Thanks mods for helping me out.
people who don't "believe" in evolution do so because it conflicts with their religious ideas. Have you ever heard a Non-religious person doubt evolutionary theory? So, it's not that they're dumb, but they're certainly influenced by supersition.Posted by: Hal at December 1, 2007 5:45 PM
My biology teacher said it best: "If you want to learn about the creationism version of how the Earth and all its beings came about, take a theology or religion course. If you want to learn about the scientific version of it..take a science course."
I personally don't think one has the ability to disprove the other...for they rely on separate processes of thought to understand. It's one of those touchy topics that people feel strongly about no matter which side they identify with. I am a religious person, but I love reading about scientific topics. Science is still quite the open book, though. One time they say something..and then 2 years later it changes. I think there is room for BOTH ideas of Creationism and Evolution in the world.Posted by: Elizabeth at December 1, 2007 5:59 PM
The Bible/Creationism/Intelligent Design has never produced a vaccine, or cured an illness, or led to the invention of anything worthwhile. Evolution has. We have evolution to thank for many of the medical advances of the 20th century.
Evolution may be "just a theory," but intelligent design is nothing but a useless myth.Posted by: tp at December 1, 2007 6:11 PM
Posted by: tp at December 1, 2007 6:18 PM
You have GOT to check this out. I love science, especially biology. This video has NOTHING to do with religion...the photography is OUTSTANDING and is narrated by scientists. I KNOW you'll love it! (narrated by a biochemist, and doesn't mention creationism.)Posted by: AB Laura at December 1, 2007 6:48 PM
"The Bible/Creationism/Intelligent Design has never produced a vaccine, or cured an illness, or led to the invention of anything worthwhile. Evolution has. We have evolution to thank for many of the medical advances of the 20th century.
Evolution may be "just a theory," but intelligent design is nothing but a useless myth."
That has got to be the most absurd thing I have ever heard. (and I've heard many!) Evolution has nothing to do with medical advances...people do! Scientists do!
If you are implying that a believer, in God and His word, cannot be a scientist and discover medical advances for the 20th century, you are very, sadly mistaken.
Actually, evolution can have negative impacts on medicine too- anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria are an example of evolution. Microevolution and macroevolution are NOT scientific terms- they're arbitrary terms that were thought up after evolution was -proven in a laboratory environment to try and squash the obvious implications of such phenomenally enlightening evidence.
Evolution does not disprove God in any way- if he's so incredibly powerful, why couldn't he have come up with such a brilliant way to ensure the survival of life under such extreme conditions as the Earth has gone through in her life? Evolution is a beautiful thing- and it doesn't mean that we 'come from monkeys' or the like. It means that we branched off from another form of primate thousands of years ago. Cumulative adaptation is evolution. It has the same scientific status as gravity does. They're both theories- and you don't achieve that status without massive amounts of research.Posted by: Erin at December 1, 2007 7:14 PM
"we 'come from monkeys' or the like. "
Well, we have a common ancestor with both monkeys and apes, monkeys were just much farther back.
"They're both theories- and you don't achieve that status without massive amounts of research."
Yeah, 150 years of it!
@PiP and Erin,
ran across this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=31cRVrKbfSE&feature=related
the comments section after this video is interesting. Why do we mistrust ourselves about whether God exists? The denial is deafening and deadly .... if this goes on in the cell of the 'eye', the activity generated within a 'simple embryo' must be mind boggling and immensely humbling. (As a replacement instead of mistrusting ourselves, do we not mistrust that God affirms life's ... and all the universe's ... continued existence?)Posted by: John McDonell at December 1, 2007 8:44 PM
mods, my page with all the links, if you could get that up soon, thanks :)
Also part 2 of one of the videos , here, goes more in depth about fossils.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 1, 2007 8:46 PM
It seems that even the KANSAS GOP insiders don't consider abortion to be a "winning issue":
In Kansas, GOP abandons abortion focus
And party leaders suggest that conservative candidates do the same, saying the issue could alienate voters nowadays.
By Stephanie Simon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 1, 2007
It would seem an ideal time for Kansas politicians opposed to abortion to push that agenda, hard. The state's two biggest clinics are under criminal indictment, and two grand juries will soon convene to consider additional charges.
But as the political season revs up, the executive director of the Kansas Republican Party has issued a stern warning to his fellow conservatives: Abortion is not a winning issue.
Morgan said that he and his party remain firmly opposed to abortion. Most Republican voters in Kansas feel the same, he said. But Morgan also believes that those voters are fed up with years of fruitless political and legal maneuvering aimed at driving abortion clinics out of business. They would much prefer to see an all-out focus on curbing illegal immigration or cutting taxes, he said.
In an e-mail rebuffing an antiabortion activist who asked for more GOP support, Morgan explained: "My job is to win elections. . . . Your agenda does not fit my agenda."
The hands-off stance frustrates Cheryl Sullenger, a leader of the antiabortion group Operation Rescue. "They're turning their back on the grass roots," she said. "All you're going to see from this is defeat."
Abortion dominated the political debate in Kansas last year, especially in the race for attorney general. The incumbent, Republican Phill Kline, was hailed as a hero by abortion foes for subpoenaing patient medical records in an attempt to build a criminal case against abortion clinics. He was soundly defeated by Democrat Paul J. Morrison, who vowed to back off the clinic prosecutions.
This election cycle, "there's a sense of 'Let's move on,' " said Alesha Doan, a political scientist at the University of Kansas.
Candidates risk a backlash, Doan said, if they're too closely associated with the efforts to pin criminal charges on abortion doctors. "At some point, a line is crossed, and you're no longer just expressing your opinion and trying to do God's work. Now you're harassing, and voters say, 'We don't want to be part of that,' " Doan said.
Though the political rhetoric may be muted, the legal battle is intensifying.
Morrison declined to pursue the most serious charges Kline had laid out against abortion doctor George Tiller of Wichita, Kan. Morrison did, however, file 19 misdemeanor counts against Tiller, alleging that he failed to get an independent second opinion before aborting viable fetuses.
Tiller, who denies wrongdoing, is one of just a few physicians in the country to take late-term patients; he has reported aborting more than 2,600 viable fetuses in the last decade. His trial is set for March 31.
Meanwhile, Kline, newly appointed district attorney of a suburban county, has pursued a criminal case against a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic near Kansas City.
In October, a judge reviewed Kline's evidence and found probable cause to proceed with 107 charges, including 23 felonies. Among the allegations: illegally aborting late-term fetuses; failing to determine viability; and keeping false or incomplete records.
Planned Parenthood's regional executive, Peter Brownlie, called the charges "baseless and bogus." The clinic's website advertises abortions at up to 23½ weeks gestation -- a point at which at least some fetuses would be viable -- but Brownlie said that for several years his doctors had turned away any patient past 22 weeks. Under Kansas law, no viability test is required before 22 weeks.
On a separate track from the criminal cases, antiabortion activists have taken advantage of a Kansas law allowing citizens, not just prosecutors, to convene grand juries. This fall, they collected enough signatures to set up two juries: one to study Tiller and the other to examine Planned Parenthood.
Tiller tried to block the process, calling it harassment, but the Kansas Supreme Court ruled this week that the 15-member grand jury must be impaneled.
Both grand juries will probably scrutinize patient records to check compliance with Kansas law, which says a viable fetus can be aborted only when two independent physicians agree that the mother would face "substantial and irreversible" harm to "a major bodily function" if she continued the pregnancy.
Nationally, some politicians have tried to make an issue out of the Kansas clinics' legal troubles. Twelve U.S. senators recently cited the criminal case against Planned Parenthood as reason to revoke more than $300 million in federal tax money the nonprofit receives for non-abortion care, such as cancer screening and birth-control counseling.
A coalition of 60 conservative advocacy groups, including Focus on the Family and Americans United for Life, echoed that call in a letter mailed to every member of Congress.
But on the stump in Kansas, Republican candidates are largely following Morgan's advice to steer clear of an issue that has the potential to alienate as many voters as it inspires.
"Right now it's halftime at the 2008 election and what we've been doing isn't working," Morgan said. "It's time to change it up a bit."
Save/SharePosted by: Laura at December 1, 2007 8:54 PM
Did you check out the link I posted yet?Posted by: AB Laura at December 1, 2007 9:12 PM
Laura, I will definitely get to it! Right now I'm watching the republican youtube debates/working on a paper. And I will probably leave for a get together in about 15 minutes. But I will get to it later tonight or tomorrow.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 1, 2007 9:39 PM
All the posts with links should be up now...Posted by: mk at December 1, 2007 9:49 PM
Very well said.Posted by: Elizabeth at December 1, 2007 10:06 PM
Fascinating link. One would have to "wonder", how does the cell, one cell, know how to do all of this?
MCAnthony, you said:
"Ron Paul isn't strictly pro-life. He "doesnï¿½t think the government has any business protecting marriage and human life." And, in the values voters debate he voted against pursuing or supporting legislation that would have prevented Terry Schiavo from being dehydrated to death. Check out an article about him in the blog of Randy Alcorn (author of numerous pro-life books including "Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments") here: www.randyalcorn.blogspot.com
Go for Mike Huckabee!
I appreciate your feedback on Ron Paul; however, you have incorrectly summarized his position that he is not "strictly pro-life".
His position is crystal clear: the Constitution (which each President is sworn in to protect and uphold upon election) does not make allowance for marriage or abortion or medical assistance at the FEDERAL (national) government level. Each of these issues (and many others) are given expressly to each of the 50 STATE governments to determine locally.
His "no" vote during the VV debate did not allow for a detailed explanation for each of his responses to the questions in the "lightning round" of yes/no responses. However, if you watch the debate on YouTube, you will see that he held all of his allotted time (per the debate format) as a closing argument to explain that he is only seeking to abide by the power vested to him as President via the Law of the Land - the Constitution - which prohibits him or any other federal representative from reaching beyond their legal jurisdiction as outlined (clearly) by our Supreme (temporal) Law as Americans - the Constitution. It is a simple fact and straightforward to understand.
I have included two links for you (and others) to review in examining his position toward life -even "strictly (absolutely?) protecting life":
I do not mean any disrespect, but please be sure to view the VV debate on YouTube with your own eyes before passing along "hearsay" from Randy Alcorn or otherwise...AND please read the Law of the Land - the Constitution - to see if what he is saying is true.
We have evolution to thank for many of the medical advances of the 20th century.
Posted by: tp at December 1, 2007 6:11 PM
I have never heard this before. Can you give an example?Posted by: hippie at December 1, 2007 11:30 PM
Thank ytou MK! Heart hug.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 3:13 AM
OMG Why are people booing Guiliani for wanting people who own guns to pass a written exam?
You think we should not have exams in order to drive cars or operate other dangerous machinery?
I guess this is why I'm not a conservative.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 4:02 AM
It looks like all of the Republicans are for overturning R v W and returning to the states.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 4:18 AM
psh all of this death penalty talk is so easily refutable..
"I believe Jesus told me to kill those people."Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 4:25 AM
Why wouldn't you describe our torture policies? Might as well give "terrorists" good warning what kind of "deterrence" we will be doing to them.
I mean, if the death penalty is "deterrence" for America, shouldn't torture be "deterrence" for uncooperative people?
Also Romney still appalled that you refuse to comply with international standards that prisoners have access to a lawyer and be tried for their crimes in a timely manner, only further damaging our image and in the case of true terrorists, make them feel they are justified. Shame on you.
I'm feeling very blunt. But now that I am exceptionally tired and a little nauseous now this debate is frustrating me a bit.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 4:34 AM
Go McCain on torture issue!!
and Ron Paul in Iraq.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 1:01 PM
Huckabee- conduct? Homosexuals can't control themselves? wtf?Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 1:16 PM
@PiP: Of course gay people can't control themselves. They're all a bunch of horny, hedonistic, sex-addicts with no moral principles and a great hatred for God.
*end sarcasm*Posted by: Rae at December 2, 2007 1:20 PM
of course! Letting gay people be open about who they are is saying that they will go wild and crazy out there....risking their lives in Iraq...
And Hunter even said he's against it simply because there will be value voters serving in the military. Way to be selfless, guy.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 1:56 PM
Homosexuals can't control themselves? wtf?
Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 1:16 PM
Theoretically homosexuals can control themselves just as anyone else could. However data shows that even with the most serious reasons for self control, people do not control themselves well enough to protect others. You can't just ignore the facts.
AIDS is a serious disease and prevalent among homosexuals. Even if they are not infected when they enter the military, they still have a high transmission rate which puts others at risk. Also they have a high transmission rate because they have on average more partners. You can't have lots of partners without soliciting them. When you are in a situation like the military, what would normally be no one else's business, quickly becomes other people's business because of close quarters etc. Many heterosexuals might feel very uncomfortable under the command of homosexuals for the above reasons. Some heterosexuals abuse authority, so it stands to reason some homosexuals would as well.
Approximately 1 in 70 New Yorkers is infected with HIV...
1 in 40 African Americans.
1 in 25 men living in Manhattan.
1 in 12 black men age 40-49 years.
1 in 10 men who have sex with men.
1 in 8 injection drug users.
1 in 5 black men age 40-49 in Manhattan.
1 in 4 men who have sex with men in Chelsea.
I have posted these stats before as has Jill.
They clearly show a behavioral tendency among homosexuals that cannot simply be dismissed.
Is their behavior their business? Yes.
When they join the military, it becomes the military's business.
My brother was in the military, and said that they are often asked to donate blood. Homosexuals cannot donate blood.
It that a big deal in peace time? Not really. In Iraq? More so.
Also, you can't dismiss that men in the military are, well, trained to kill. I have heard some say that if they were in combat the first person they would shoot would be the guy next to him because he was so stupid he would get their whole platoon killed. I am not saying that is typical, but if some hate a particular soldier, his safety could be in danger. It is a safety issue for homosexuals serving as well as those who serve with them. Dealing with the issue of gays in the military is an administrative nightmare.
It is easy for us to say well everyone should be more tolerant. Even though that is true, we have an all volunteer force. Some folks who volunteer will be intolerant, even violently so. We can't pick and choose too much because there is not a sufficient pool from which to pick and choose.
Maybe someday attitudes about homosexuals will change and maybe the HIV rate among homosexuals will be similar to that of heterosexuals, and maybe (but rather unlikely) homosexuals will solicit fewer partners so heterosexuals won't be so defensive. Until then, integrating homosexuals is going to be very difficult and the command structure in the military will resist it.
Is there a country that has successfully integrated homosexuals into its military?
@PiP: "Value voters" don't really exist, as no politician truly has "values". So why people continue to vote for those "value-driven", hypocritical, lying, cheating slime-balls is beyond me. As you can tell, I have the utmost respect and opinion for politicians and our political system (I get more and more cynical by the day).
Quite frankly, your sexual orientation shouldn't matter as long as you do your damn job. Ditto with race and gender (though I do recognize there are somethings women just can't do and things that men can't do...but let's not get into that discussion right now).Posted by: Rae at December 2, 2007 2:02 PM
that was me
Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2007 2:01 PM
@Hippie: Pretty sure most of the European armies have homosexuals in their militaries. I am almost 90% sure that Britain does.
I'm not sure how the connection between HIV and gay folks keeps them out of the military. Lesbian women are "homosexual" yet they have extremely low HIV infection rates, and are perfectly capable of donating blood and being productive military members.
Of course one shouldn't serve the military if they're HIV positive, but if they're HIV negative, that whole point is moot, they can donate blood as long as they're healthy and STD-free.
"We can't pick and choose too much because there is not a sufficient pool from which to pick and choose."
We already pick and choose Hippie. I am a very healthy female, and more than qualified for the National Guard but I was rejected for being on anti-depressants. How bloody arbitrary is that? Had I lied and said I was not on any medications, I would have been in the clear. I mean I'm female, it's not like I'd be in combat or killing anybody (as my test scores would likely have allowed me to get a more technical-based position in the Guard).Posted by: Rae at December 2, 2007 2:12 PM
The states that allow concealed handguns require written tests and successful completion of a gun safety course. It seems that a similar program for gun ownership is certainly advisable. A gun is still dangerous even if it is at your house, in your car, or if you are out in the woods. Most states allow you to have a gun in your car, if you have more than a certain amout of cash with you or if you are crossing more than three counties.
The most dangerous weapon is the one that people think is "safe"Posted by: hippie at December 2, 2007 2:15 PM
"AIDS is a serious disease and prevalent among homosexuals"
It's most prevalent in African American women. Therefore, they can't control themselves and shouldn't be allowed to be themselves if they decide to serve.
"Many heterosexuals might feel very uncomfortable under the command of homosexuals for the above reasons"
They feel uncomfortable because they are afraid those evil homosexuals will rape them? I would laugh but it is too sad.
I know a lot of gay people. Most of them have relationships about the same amount of length as everyone else. To imply that since some people that might abuse power might be homosexuals is the same logic that says it's okay to abort because then there will be nothing to abuse.
"Homosexuals cannot donate blood. "
That's news to me.
"I have heard some say that if they were in combat the first person they would shoot would be the guy next to him because he was so stupid he would get their whole platoon killed"
"It is a safety issue for homosexuals serving as well as those who serve with them."
Only if heterosexuals can't control themselves. If they are that violent, then maybe we shouldn't let heterosexuals serve.
"Some folks who volunteer will be intolerant, even violently so."
If we can do without much needed translators because we fired homosexuals, then surely we can let go the people who feel compelled to kill a homosexual in their camp. Of course, the army is also pretty good at covering up torture, too.
"Until then, integrating homosexuals is going to be very difficult and the command structure in the military will resist it."
I think we should keep out african americans. Their AIDS rate and other cultural diseases may decrease in the future, if they can keep it in their pants. Maybe then we should. And besides, some racists in the camp may want to hurt them. We can't have that. They are volunteers! What an administrative nightmare!
"Is there a country that has successfully integrated homosexuals into its military?"
Take a look at England-
for a hippie, hippie, that post on gays in the military was a bit unexpected.
About firearms, I agree that we should have tests, we should have tests to operate dangerous machinery of all kinds.
At the Republican debate people were booing Guiliani for saying the same thing.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 2:23 PM
above there it should say African AND African-American women.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 2:27 PM
I don't know about the military in other countries, I have not read anything about homosexuals being allowed to serve in any military.
I agree that we already pick and choose folks based on measurable criteria like what medicines they are taking. How do you measure tolerance? I haven't tried to join the military so I don't know what psychological tests they give or how they would assess how a group of usual recruits would tolerate being in group that had a homosexual member who they felt would solicit them. How would you get these guys to be more tolerant? Would it be feasible? What would it cost? and with all the other things the military leaders have to do, why would they feel it in their interest to do so?
We live in a country where individual rights are super important. The military culture is not the same as civilian culture. It is structured around specific goals which require far more from its personell in terms of sacrifice and affords them far less in freedoms. That is what defines it.
I am not really arguing against it so much as I am trying to state some of the hurdles we would have to get over in order to be successful in integrating homosexuals.
A commander in chief and congress want an effective, efficient military. In general, they think that the military leadership best knows how to achieve that. So they are unlikely to press the leadership for change that would not likey increase the available military recruitment pool, maybe because they know that the draft is far less popular than barring openly homosexual members from the military.
If homosexuals are 5% of the population, what percent of all recruits are so averse to serving with homosexuals that allowing them serve would actually decrease the available recruitment pool? Military leaders are not dying to find out how many young men would absolutely not volunteer if they knew they would be serving with openly homosexual men.
As for lesbians, I don't really think men, women, military leadership are too worried about them. I think it is more about the men. I can't prove that, but the reasons you give pretty much make the argument that lesbians are not much of a threat to military efficiency.Posted by: Hippie at December 2, 2007 2:45 PM
"I don't know about the military in other countries, I have not read anything about homosexuals being allowed to serve in any military."
Check out that article I posted.
"How would you get these guys to be more tolerant?"
Nobody is making anyone like anyone. They are allowed to not like someone, as long as they give respect to everyone as soldiers. There will always be conflict within groups of people living with each other, but it would be unacceptable for it to turn into violence. Saying that because there might be violence to them they shouldn't serve is not logical thinking. There will be less violence to children if they didn't exist. Therefore, abortion is okay.
"It is structured around specific goals which require far more from its personell in terms of sacrifice and affords them far less in freedoms."
So, homosexuals would not be able to sacrifice and deal with less freedom? Does the less freedom part require that they not be able to discuss who they are?
"I am not really arguing against it so much as I am trying to state some of the hurdles we would have to get over in order to be successful in integrating homosexuals."
Did the fact that people didn't like black people stop the reason for the civil rights movement? NO, in fact that is the reason why we needed to have one!
"If homosexuals are 5% of the population, what percent of all recruits are so averse to serving with homosexuals that allowing them serve would actually decrease the available recruitment pool?"
"As for lesbians, I don't really think men, women, military leadership are too worried about them."
Why not? Are they not equally sinful, are they not likely to be powerful (and you know some powerful can abuse their power), are they not equally subject to discrimination? If you argue against male homosexuals, why not use the same arguments against females?
I regularly donate blood and they always ask if you are a man who has sex with other men or have had sex with a man who has had sex with another man. They ask this question multiple times with different phrasing. They disqualify you based on your answers. The transmission rate of HIV infection rate among homosexual men is far too high to allow them to donate blood.
I haven't looked at the infection rate of African American women that much but the info I saw from the CDC seems to show male homosexual contact as leading. Even if half of the cases are black women and half are homosexual men, the rate among the men is higher because there are fewer of them.
My point is that military leadership perceives homosexuals as a threat and they don't want to bother with including them because there aren't that many of them, so they see the potential benefit as minimal. They look at cost vs. benefit and they don't think it is worth the effort.Posted by: hippie at December 2, 2007 3:13 PM
"The transmission rate of HIV infection rate among homosexual men is far too high to allow them to donate blood."
Hmmm I do remember my gay friends being allowed to donate blood.
If they don't want to bother with it, why would they fire the much needed translators just because they came out? Why couldn't they let it slide?Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 3:25 PM
"If homosexuals are 5% of the population, what percent of all recruits are so averse to serving with homosexuals that allowing them serve would actually decrease the available recruitment pool?"
Some military leaders may feel that some potential recruits would not volunteer if they would have to serve with homosexuals. Is that real? I don't know, but they may feel that allowing homosexuals to serve would deter enough other recruits that it would be a net loss in recruitment. Military leaders are not looking to find ways to deter men from joining. Maybe allowing gays to serve would have no effect on recruitment. Maybe it would increase it. I don't know. Military leaders may not wish to gamble. The military is not like the rest of society. It is somewhat segregated by gender to limit sexual solicitation and for privacy and safety.
I know gays too, and as you say, they have relationships about as long as anyone else. That is just fine. However the HIV transmission rate doesn't lie. Epidemiology studies can infer the rate of contact from the number of people and the number of cases. That is how they figured out that cervical cancer had an infectious component. Low rates of contact equal low rates of infection. What my friends tell me they do does not equal the behviour of the entire group.
As for not letting heterosexual serve because they might be violent, part of military service is, um, violence. I agree everyone needs self control and I know I am from another generation but um, men who volunteer for the military are not exactly pacifists.
I don't think that disallowing gays is about keeping sinful people out. I haven't heard anyone make that argument.Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2007 3:42 PM
"If they don't want to bother with it, why would they fire the much needed translators just because they came out? Why couldn't they let it slide?
Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 3:25 PM
That depends on who found out. How they found out. who else knew etc, etc. How come some people get away with stuff and others don't? Are some gays still serving? I think so. Are people trying to get rid of them? probably some would if they could.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2007 3:51 PM
"Some military leaders may feel that some potential recruits would not volunteer if they would have to serve with homosexuals."
Does that make it okay?
"What my friends tell me they do does not equal the behviour of the entire group."
And vice versa, eh?
"As for not letting heterosexual serve because they might be violent, part of military service is, um, violence."
Against their own men? I'd like to think there is a difference. Also, I'm pretty sure the army wants men who want to do something good for their country, not just looking to kill people arbitrarily.
"I agree everyone needs self control and I know I am from another generation but um, men who volunteer for the military are not exactly pacifists."
Um...that was not what I was saying. Read again. If someone is so violent that they try to kill or maim their own roommates or campmates, then I'm not sure they should be serving.
"I don't think that disallowing gays is about keeping sinful people out. I haven't heard anyone make that argument."
haha really? You never heard that one before? You made the same argument. If gay men are so unable to control themselves, and if they are so much in danger of being seriously hurt by the people that serve with them (that think they are sinful and have offensive lifestyle), why wouldn't it be the same for women?
"That depends on who found out."
You tell the wrong friend or boss and you're out? Tell another and you are in? Wow sounds like a great policy we are having over there. Seems to me like this works!!
Any man who has had sex with another man even once is barred for life from donating blood.
Blood donor centers carefully screen potential donors. The screening guidelines are necessary to ensure that blood donation is safe for you and that it's safe for the person who receives your blood.
During the screening process, you fill out a confidential medical history that includes direct questions about behaviors known to carry a higher risk of blood-borne infections — infections that are transmitted through the blood. These behaviors include prostitution, male homosexual activity and intravenous drug use.Posted by: hippie at December 2, 2007 3:58 PM
OK, hippie. I didn't know about that, but I do know that several of my gay friends have donated blood.
I thought this was because they automatically do tests on blood to make sure there was no HIV in there.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 4:00 PM
I did not make the argument that gays are sinful, and no, I haven't seen politicians or military leaders making that argument either.
Heterosexual men do not want to be solicited by gays and will react strongly and defensively against it. Not because it is sinful but because it is unwelcome. I think we all agree that unwelcome sexual advances are offensive.
Women in the military are somewhat segregated from men for the same reason.
As for getting fired for breaking policy, I am not saying that the inherent unfairness is fair. I am saying that when you violate a policy you may very well get fired. If a student cheated and I didn't know, well then I wouldn't give him a zero. However if I did know, then I would. All of life is like that. Sometimes you get out of a speeding ticket and sometimes you don't. It isn't fair. It is not going to get fair. It is chance. If the rule is don't tell, and you tell anyway, well you know you could get kicked out.
I think you feel I am defending some military policy when I think I am just describing it.
Anyway, my baby woke up. Thanks for sharing your views.
Have a great evening!Posted by: hippie at December 2, 2007 4:17 PM
@PiP: The way blood banks screen blood is that they pool several different pints of it together and test that one batch of blood for STDs, HIV, etc. If that batch is found to have some sort of STD all the pints that were in said batch are destroyed, whether they are "healthy" or not.
It is financially burdensome to test each pint of blood individually, hence the pooling and donor screening.
Hope that helps?Posted by: Rae at December 2, 2007 4:21 PM
One last thing about the HIV blood testing.
They do test but there is a small window between infection and when there are enough antibodies to be detected by the test. So a recently infected, and infectious person could possibly transmit the virus through blood before the test could pick it up. Chance is small but not zero.Posted by: hippie at December 2, 2007 4:22 PM
"Heterosexual men do not want to be solicited by gays and will react strongly and defensively against it. Not because it is sinful but because it is unwelcome. I think we all agree that unwelcome sexual advances are offensive."
But again, I'm sure that most gay men will not come on to every man he sees; men and women sometimes get into relationships while serving. They obviously have contact with the opposite sex. So the "unwanted solicitation" would go both ways, no?
"As for getting fired for breaking policy, I am not saying that the inherent unfairness is fair.."
See, I think the policy is unfair. So getting fired for that policy would be unfair, too.
"If the rule is don't tell, and you tell anyway, well you know you could get kicked out."
Yeah, sometimes you have to break the rules to fight injustice.
"I think you feel I am defending some military policy when I think I am just describing it."
You are describing it, and I get that, but I think you are also implicitly supporting it, specifically with your first post:
"Is there a country that has successfully integrated homosexuals into its military?"
"However data shows that even with the most serious reasons for self control, people do not control themselves well enough to protect others. You can't just ignore the facts."
Rae, hippie, that does help. I htought that they just excluded diagnosed people at the front, and then tested the blood after donation.
interesting.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 4:27 PM
@Hippie: There are other tests beside the antibody test for HIV. They do PCR tests which directly detect the viral RNA, so it can detect an HIV infection in the first 3 months before the antibodies are developed (a person is most infectious within the first 2-3 weeks of infection).Posted by: Rae at December 2, 2007 4:33 PM
Yeah, sometimes you have to break the rules to fight injustice.
Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 4:25 PM
Unless you are prolife, then you have to be perfect.
Any civil disobedience is labeled racketeering and violence and harassment.
Even when you obey the law, you can arrested, your property impounded and vandalized.
Peaceful prayer is "harassment"
Passing out flyers on a public sidewalk and offering free services is "hounding"Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2007 5:27 PM
"Unless you are prolife, then you have to be perfect."
No, you can break the rules, within reason.
Protesting is great, even getting arrested for protesting is cool.
Just don't hurt anybody, that's all.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 6:50 PM
Getting arrested for protesting is SO cool. No joke.
If I wasn't a mother to a very young child..I would love to be arrested for protesting. Especially at the Aurora PP here where they put up all the NO PROTESTING signs.
I'm sure you all think I'm crazy now.Posted by: Elizabeth at December 2, 2007 9:58 PM
No dude I totally think that it's cool to get arrested for protesting. I've never had that opportunity!Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 10:49 PM
Spending the night in county jail is really not so fun. I have not had the pleasure but a number of my friends have. If you are in some tiny nowhere ville, it may just be boring, but in a major metropolitan area, it is not so cool. These friends are not exactly from pampered society, and even they thought it was rough. Sitting among ladies who might be drunk or high and start asking you what you are looking at, trying to start something. Not so fun.Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2007 11:47 PM
Yeah, sometimes you have to break the rules to fight injustice.
Posted by: prettyinpink at December 2, 2007 4:25 PM
Unless you are prolife, then you have to be perfect.
Any civil disobedience is labeled racketeering and violence and harassment.
Even when you obey the law, you can arrested, your property impounded and vandalized.
Peaceful prayer is "harassment"
Passing out flyers on a public sidewalk and offering free services is "hounding"
Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2007 5:27 PM
I think that is called littering. Are you using reclaimed paper products?Posted by: Sally at December 2, 2007 11:48 PM
watching your movie.
Michael Behe? He is one of very few dissenting scientists, and his university is ashamed of him! That's how lame his research is.
Actually Michael, our research on cells has only made darwinian theory more plausible.
"Irreducible complexity" is not a valid "scientific" hypothesis. The goal of science is to dismantle what may seem irreducible at the time, and if we don't figure it out now, then we may well figure it out in the future. Because something can't be explained doesn't mean that it was just an "act of God." There is no God of the gaps. It's antiscientific in every sense of the word. We have a pretty good idea on how the flagellum evolved, anyway. These videos are pretty much all the same. If you want a very good opinion with graphs and data that is actually CITED (!!) Some of those videos above are from a YouTube user Extant Dodo. VERY good at taking apart anti-evolution videos and then basically decimating them. And they cite their references too :)
Trust me, evolutionary theory is in no way in peril, that is just the way people are trying to make it look in the public sphere. There is often communication problems within the two areas which is how we run into problems!Posted by: prettyinpink at December 3, 2007 1:57 AM
evolutionary theory is not in any way imperiled just as long as it has adherents like you. You are right in that 'there is no God in the gaps', but He is front-and-center, but it must be in a dark room (no light) ... many a philosopher used to call this 'ignorance'.
It is not the gaining a quasi-familiarity that excludes God but a two-fold problem. On one side, whether it is on a micro or macro scale, there is ORDER in the complexity. This is so pervasive and strong that some philosophers (atheists) claimed that 'order' was generated by the brain and reality was in fact chaos.
The other problem is pointed out in Genesis. God gives man the power to name things. In fact this naming is usually the elements of an order ... what are called 'types'. ALL SCIENCE is a grouping of types .... the reason there is no science of PiP ... there is no science of unique.
There always is the conflict with ideology with actuality. Naming something (even a whole slew of things) should not replace the fact of existence - the actual being. Far too often we get caught in the proper naming of a rose, and never stop-and-smell-it. A good example of this is the phenomenon called 'life'. Understanding the complexity of cell structure'(no matter how detailed) does not make it alive. It only makes it 'understood', really only how' it works, and zip about 'that-it-works' and nothing about 'why it exists' at all.Posted by: John McDonell at December 3, 2007 9:04 AM
"evolutionary theory is not in any way imperiled just as long as it has adherents like you"
In the event that the mounds of evidence are "proven" wrong, I will change. It just baffles me how many people don't accept evolutionary theory just from ideological perspectives rather than scientific ones. Any "scientific" arguments against it are often ridiculous.
"You are right in that 'there is no God in the gaps', but He is front-and-center, but it must be in a dark room (no light) ... many a philosopher used to call this 'ignorance'."
You can take philosophy however you want to. But when you insert it into the realm of science simply because something hasn't been fully understood yet you are committing a major fallacy.
"It is not the gaining a quasi-familiarity that excludes God but a two-fold problem."
evolution has no say on God whatsoever. That is why inserting God scientifically doesn't work. Science is not about the supernatural. Philosophy is.
"ALL SCIENCE is a grouping of types .... the reason there is no science of PiP ... there is no science of unique."
Sure there is. Wanna map my DNA genome? Science is all about learning about groups of organisms. As is evolution-evolution is all about the change in alleles in a gene pool over time. But each species and individual is different, science does recognize that.
"Naming something (even a whole slew of things) should not replace the fact of existence "
Which scientist is arguing that we don't exist?
" Far too often we get caught in the proper naming of a rose, and never stop-and-smell-it."
Heard of aromatic compounds?
Many scientists appreciate this, that's why they go into science in the first place. But they know where their belief in God lies- life practice and individual spirituality. The minute we insert God into science, any objectivity is lost.
"Understanding the complexity of cell structure'(no matter how detailed) does not make it alive."
It helps us understand how it lives.
"t only makes it 'understood', really only how' it works, and zip about 'that-it-works' and nothing about 'why it exists' at all."
Yes. "Why it exists" is not a question science can and should answer.
You shouldn't confuse philosophy/religion in science. That is the flaw in Michael Behe, etc. Their scientific arguments don't stand- the argument of incredulity (e.g. "irreducible complexity) is not valid. You might be able to argue it in a philosophical setting. But leave it there.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 3, 2007 11:10 AM
"Which scientist is arguing that we don't exist?"
That context is, which scientist is trying to scientifically "prove" we don't exist?
talking to you is refreshing because it takes me back to stuff I learned almost 40 years ago. Sorry to tell you this, but science is not a stand-alone body of knowledge and is certainly not 'the ultimate' nor is it 'the mother' of knowledge. 'Science' (at least what you have indicated as meaning 'science') is only one branch of human knowledge. The 'trunk' of that tree is philosophy. The intellectual study of God (another branch) is called metaphysics. Yet another whole different branch is religion.
One way to look at this: the tree itself is nourished in the 'soil' of significance.
The reason I wrote about no science of uniqueness ... yep, except God. Is that all human labeling is based on 'type'. We compare realities and give name to similarities. (For example, while your DNA and mine are different, that structural difference is so minute that they are 'scientifically' speaking the same. We are two members of the species homo sapiens sapiens. Therefore, claiming DNA as a badge-of-uniqueness is frought with problems. I specifically wrote that there is no science of PiP, because there is but one you. Ask your librarian then for a book on the science of PiP. It will be a unique request ... just unanswerable.)
I am not saying that evolution principles are not valid (in many circumstances). But to accredit them with significance in areas far-removed from biology is problematic.
I'll give you a short rationale of the way evolution can be mis-used. Abortion is done by doctors who have studied biology. Therefore, it must be OK! It is only evolution ... the stronger taking-out the weaker, etc.Posted by: John McDonell at December 3, 2007 12:58 PM
"Science' (at least what you have indicated as meaning 'science') is only one branch of human knowledge. "
I agree. I don't think science is everything, nor did I allude to it. I simply said that philosophy isn't science. You said so yourself. It is the trunk, right?
"Therefore, claiming DNA as a badge-of-uniqueness is frought with problems. "
In a sense our DNA helps define our phenotypic difference and each person's DNA is a little different, which is why it helps in identifying people with crime scenes, paternity tests, etc.
"Ask your librarian then for a book on the science of PiP."
I don't claim that science studies me specifically. But it recognizes that I am an individual.
"But to accredit them with significance in areas far-removed from biology is problematic."
Then it would become ideological rather than scientific. See why I think we should try to make them separate? Evolution doesn't say it is the be all end all, there is no connotation with God or any supernatural occurances, it simply is a description and explanation of speciation and allelic frequencies leading to diversification. When people make the theory part of their be all end all of philosophy it is just that, it is not science.
"Abortion is done by doctors who have studied biology. Therefore, it must be OK! It is only evolution ... the stronger taking-out the weaker, etc."
Although that doesn't make any sense to me, biology, like anything else (psychology, chemistry, theology, business etc) can be abused. Does that make evolution invalid? NO. Not an any way shape or form. These videos are trying to present themselves and their supernatural philosophy as science when THEY ARE NOT.
Perhaps, you mistrust Michael Behe's rationale as being 'unscientific'.... mainly based on the observation that the motor for cell movement has 4o parts ... compare this to evolutions slow movement over generations .... just how can a cell without propulsion exist for hundreds, thousands, millions of years (let alone propagate). Remember that without an intact motor = no movement.
What are the conclusions he is faced with:
a) evolution theory is inadequate, because the motor's operation demands that ALL 40 parts be present simultaneously and in a coordinated fashion.
b) that there is this operation present
c) what explains this?
A scientist (your definition) ... is especially one that does not shame his university with an affront: speaking as if God belongs in biology too. (Strange when the universe is His creation, so finding His footprint is 'shameful-act'?) Ask any parent about the 'miracle' of birth, then tell them that the birth had little to do with God.
Maybe there are times when it is better to be human, than to be scientific?Posted by: John McDonell at December 3, 2007 2:47 PM
"evolution theory is inadequate"
No, he is arguing from incredulity. "Well we don't know everything about flagella evolution, and look everyone! It's so complex! How could evolution do that! It must be wrong!" Uh uh. We have a good idea of what would have to happen. And movement does not require flagella. Or cilia, for that matter.
"motor's operation demands that ALL 40 parts be present simultaneously and in a coordinated fashion."
To make this exceedingly simple, the game Jenga involves building something piece by piece, but you take out one or few parts, and the whole thing falls apart. Does that mean that it possibly couldn't have been built piece by piece? Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker does a great job at explaining this concept.
"what explains this?"
Rather than offering a replacement explanation, he says "God did it." Wow! What a scientific breakthrough!
"A scientist (your definition) ... is especially one that does not shame his university with an affront"
I never "defined" a scientist as such. It is just that Behe is a joke in the scientific community as well as his own university. The scientific community and most people who listen to what we know and have to say are aware that ID is just creationism, and creationism isn't science, by definition! See the dover trials..
"speaking as if God belongs in biology too"
God belongs in the biologist.
Look, how are we going to test "God"? How do we prove he exists? What direct evidence do we have that we were created in 6 literal days, all at once? How do we falsify "God"? How do we observe "God"?
You can't. They call it "faith" for a reason. Faith is perhaps the very opposite of scientific inquiry. We reason based on evidence, we don't take our ideology and suddenly define it as science. Uh uh. Don't work that way. Again arguing by incredulity does nothing. That argument isn't scientific.
The theistic scientist sees God in the earth, they see the earth as a part of God's ultimate creation. They want to figure out how the creation works and how it has changed through time. But, "God" is not in the scientific explanation because as I have already said, it is NOT science.
"finding His footprint is 'shameful-act'?"
Ugh. I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over. Behe is welcome to believe in god, just like over 80% of scientists do. His ideas concerning ID are considered ridiculous because he has no evidence to back it up, no testing, no papers, no real alternate explanation of the data that supports evolution. If he calls his religion science he's welcome to, but those who know its unscientific find it kinda funny.
"Ask any parent about the 'miracle' of birth, then tell them that the birth had little to do with God.
Maybe there are times when it is better to be human, than to be scientific?"
Again, YES! That is not my argument AT ALL. My argument was never that God doesn't exist, or that no people find the earth and its life and processes amazing, etc etc etc.
But AGAIN, I'm saying that science itself has nothing to say about it. It is neutral because the supernatural isn't testable repeatable observable, etc. The scientists can believe in God all they want, have all different philosophies on life, etc etc etc. Science isn't the be all end all of the world. As you say, it is but a branch, right?
But, when you put your religion into science, a field of study that painstakingly tries to be objective as possible, it becomes completely subjective. Because philosophy and religion is absolutely subjective, or we wouldn't have the diverse kinds of religion and philosophy in the world today, would we?Posted by: prettyinpink at December 3, 2007 4:09 PM
And remember, Behe is not saying "maybe God helped guide evolution" or even leaving that possibility open.
He is saying that God must have created it like it is today. I guess it's just a coincidence that 98% of our DNA is the same as the chimpanzee's, I guess.
Try reading "Finding Darwin's God" for a more educated and eloquent and less somewhat frustrated explanation of what I'm trying to say. ;)Posted by: prettyinpink at December 3, 2007 4:17 PM
I hear you ... I really do. But there is only questionable 'objectivity'. And if one has a Cartesian-box mindset - reality is all subjective because .......
A friend asked me to read: 'Power, Sex, Suicide' by Nick Lane, because he wished my take on this book. The author, N. Lane obviously knows a great deal about the mitochondria ... but every time he gets into a bind he says that this bind is resolved by a form of evolving that 'must have occurred'. Even though (he readily admits) there is no scientific proof ... and no fossil record,... zip.
As just one example: the modern cell is the fusion of the mitochondria (a virus cell) and a host cell. According to him ... the only explanation possible is an evolutionary fusion of the two ... even though one is anaerobic and the other aerobic. (To a non-scientist: opposite each other.) It does not even enter his thought that perhaps, maybe some ID is involved. He does this not only once but over and over ad nauseum.
The main thing I find a wee strange is your contention that God is "in the biologist not in biology" .... prove it! It is as if God plays by human rules ... we want 'objective, so You do not belong'. Maybe it is our objectivity that does not belong!Posted by: John McDonell at December 3, 2007 5:55 PM
" "in the biologist not in biology" .... prove it"
It's my opinion, it cannot be proven. Science says nothing whatsoever about God. My point about "in the biologist" is that spirituality is personal. It is not universal.
" anaerobic and the other aerobic"
There are several hypotheses concerning this. There is quite a bit of evidence that mitochondria evolved via a symbiotic relationship.
"It is as if God plays by human rules ... we want 'objective, so You do not belong'. "
human rules of what constitutes science. We make exclusion and inclusion rules all the time. We don't explain economics or technology (human constructs) by saying God did it, for example. It seems like people only disrupt our set qualifications when it is convenient for their ideology.
"Maybe it is our objectivity that does not belong!"
We are not totally objective but we mean to set science to be as objective as possible. Philosophy is EXTREMELY subjective, and the supernatural certainly doesn't qualify to be a part of scientific inquiry by the rules we set out (observable testable describable repeatable demonstrable etc). Faith by definition is not demonstrable or "provable." So why are you trying to make it science? Nobody is saying that a scientist cannot believe in God, it is simply saying that God doesn't qualify as a scientific explanation of something.
Again I think you are trying to put out an argument that science is "suppressing" God or claiming authority against Him. Biology describes life and the natural world. By definition is has no comment on God or the supernatural. How you or anyone else fit it into their belief system is up to them, but that is outside the realm of biology.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 3, 2007 6:40 PM
the world of language is testament to our particular relationship to our universe. there are words for two different realities .... one is names and is a recognition of the uniqueness of a being. The rest of nouns are those formed by comparison and similarity .... a process called abstraction. It is the world of virtuality (that exists in our head) and is different from actuality (which is the universe created by God).
There are not too many places that show this distinction quite as much as the concepts 'zero' and 'nothing'. In actuality these words
have no correlation. In virtuality these two words build great edifaces ... 'zero' in mathmatics, physics, electronics, engineering, etc and 'nothing' is the base of experimentation, repetition, assessment of similarity ... because it presupposes the possible separation of an aspect from an object.
Every science has many of its roots here. But it gets most of its fodder from actuality. It is very confusing if being is more virtual or actual.Posted by: John McDonell at December 3, 2007 8:55 PM
Prettyinpink is my evolution hero!
I am suspect of the intellect of anyone who supports literal creationism.Posted by: Anonymous at December 4, 2007 2:15 PM
I gotta say that the idea of Creation doesn't necessarily rule out evolution. Heck, nobody really knows just how everything started out, but if there was an intelligence that made life on earth, there's nothing saying that it couldn't evolve from there.
DougPosted by: Doug at December 4, 2007 6:55 PM
Doug, you are right, many people think that God used evolution in his creations (like me!).
However, the Creationist ("ID") movement today does not hold that as a possibility.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 4, 2007 9:03 PM
Korn's new single is titled "Evolution."Posted by: Doug at December 4, 2007 9:54 PM
Ever heard the pearl jam song evolution?Posted by: prettyinpink at December 5, 2007 12:18 AM
PIP, "Do the Evolution" by Pearl Jam?
How about the Deftones "Change"?Posted by: Doug at December 5, 2007 1:13 AM
yeah! What a badass music video!
nope, never heard change? I don't think? I might have.Posted by: prettyinpink at December 5, 2007 10:38 PM
vwfnrxajq zqahpt cdmh pyemxoks abdymv whxez xniorPosted by: mardcnbtp proi at December 14, 2007 10:24 AM
vwyz uqfiotj tkqmys gofznah giwkjuzvm sfhzmik rtdzlhenv http://www.suahfqinz.amzutyo.comPosted by: gynrlduet yiurnwpqh at December 14, 2007 10:26 AM
Good site. Thank you!
http://casinoonline.corank.com no deposit casino bonus
Nice site. Thank you:-)
http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=walmart free walmart coupons
Cool site. Thanks.
http://louisvuittonhandbags.corank.com louis vuitton handbags