Saturday, November 26, 2005

Four centuries of Muslim murder, torture, rape, pillage, and destruction

And when finally Christianity defended itself, it was wrong?

Only in the eyes of Islam (which always blames its victims when they try to defend themselves against it) and in the minds of those Westerners whose suicidal self-loathing causes them to ignore, lie about, or obfuscate the truth regarding Islam (the religion that will convert, subdue, or slaughter them if their own calls for appeasement and "tolerance" win out).

Tragically, though it is the West's Judeo-Christian heritage that will give Men the courage to stand against the subjugation of its own, free peoples, that is the one thing those who despise Western Civilization and Christianity actually hate.

More from Robert Spencer's vital work: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), when in 1095, after four hundred years of Islam slaughtering, raping, and enslaving North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, the West answered a desperate call for help:
"From the confines of Jerusalem and from the city of Constantinople a grievous report has gone forth and has repeatedly been brought to our ears; namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race wholly alienated from God, "a generation that set not their heart aright and whose spirit was not steadfast with God," violently invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by pillage and fire. They have led away a part of the captives into their own country, and a part they have killed by cruel tortures. They have either destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of their own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness....

The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and has been deprived of territory so vast in extent that it could be traversed in two months' time....

This royal city, however, situated at the center of the earth, is now held captive by the enemies of Christ and is subjected, by those who do not know God, to the worship of the heathen. She seeks, therefore, and desires to be liberated and ceases not to implore you to come to her aid. From you especially she asks succor, because as we have already said, God has conferred upon you above all other nations great glory in arms.
Today very similar circumstances exist: Qur'anic Islam ascends in power, violence, and oppression against Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims around the world, and Christendom possesses the vastly superior military power necessary to defeat Islam on the battlefield.

The vital points on which history hangs are: will the West recognize the truth about Islam before it is too late, and if so, will it have the moral courage to do what is necessary to defeat once and for all?

He aided Jihad in Europe

An obvious conclusion: President Clinton bombed Christians who were fighting against jihadists.

From The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, by Robert Spencer:
"In the 1990's, the Balkans became a favored destination for veterans of the jihad wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya. A prominent jihad commander in Bosnia, Abu Abdel Aziz, explained that he went there after meeting with several Islamic authorities in Saudi Arabia. They "all support," he said, "the religious dictum that 'the fighting in Bosnia is a fight to make the word of Allah supreme and protect the chastity of Muslims.' It is because Allah said (in his holy book), 'Yet, if they as you for succor against religious persecution, it is your duty to give [them] this succor.'...It is then our (religious) duty to defend our Muslim brethren wherever they are, as long as they are persecuted because they are Muslims and not for any other reason."
And as for the idea that jihadists are a "minority" of "extremists" bred in the poverty and oppression of the Middle East:
Before, during, and after the 2003 war in Iraq, jihadist streamed into that country from all over the world-including some unexpected places; a German security official noted in late 2003 that "since the end of the war, there has been a large movement of people motivated by Islamic extremism from Germany and the rest of Europe toward Iraq" (Spencer, 128).

Friday, November 25, 2005

How can a terrorist-sympathizer find a place of leadership in the Religion of Peace?

Perhaps because his ideology is consistent with Islam's founder's. From Jihad Watch:
Another example of the fact that there is no dividing line in the Islamic community between peaceful and violent Muslims, and that prominent "moderates" can easily become "radicals": remember that Imam Fawaz Damra was one of the signers of the CAIR-endorsed fatwa against terrorism issued some time ago by the Fiqh Council of North America. Fawaz Damra update from AP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Federal authorities arrested an Islamic religious leader Friday as they began the process of deporting him for lying about ties to terrorist groups.

Imam Fawaz Damra, the spiritual leader of Ohio's largest mosque, was convicted in June 2004 of concealing ties to three groups that the U.S. government classifies as terrorist organizations when he applied for U.S. citizenship in 1994.

That conviction was upheld in March, clearing the way for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to begin deportation proceedings.

Damra, 44, was arrested early Friday without incident, the immigration office said....

The Palestinian-born Damra, who is the imam, or spiritual leader, at the Islamic Center of Cleveland, immigrated to the United States in the mid-1980s.

In Damra's trial last year, prosecutors showed video footage of Damra and other Islamic leaders raising money for an arm of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which has been listed as a major terrorist group by the State Department since 1989.

Jurors also were shown footage in which Damra called Jews "the sons of monkeys and pigs" during a 1991 speech and said "terrorism and terrorism alone is the path to liberation" in a 1989 speech.

How could this happen?

How was this person able to lead a moderate, tolerant, religious community without their discovering and rejecting his "misunderstanding," his "hijacking" of their "great" religion?

To what extent did he work to instruct his people on their god's commands to fight against, subdue, and kill non-Muslims?

To what degree and with what fervor did his congregation take to heart and desire to put into practice Allah's commands?

How long will it be until Western governments recognize what their citizens are beginning to come to understand--that Islam cannot have "peace" with the West until it is destroyed?

From LGF:
"Federal authorities arrested an Islamic religious leader Friday as they began the process of deporting him for lying about ties to terrorist groups.

Imam Fawaz Damra, the spiritual leader of Ohio’s largest mosque, was convicted in June 2004 of concealing ties to three groups that the U.S. government classifies as terrorist organizations when he applied for U.S. citizenship in 1994. ...

The Palestinian-born Damra, who is the imam, or spiritual leader, at the Islamic Center of Cleveland, immigrated to the United States in the mid-1980s.

In Damra’s trial last year, prosecutors showed video footage of Damra and other Islamic leaders raising money for an arm of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which has been listed as a major terrorist group by the State Department since 1989.

Jurors also were shown footage in which Damra called Jews “the sons of monkeys and pigs” during a 1991 speech and said “terrorism and terrorism alone is the path to liberation” in a 1989 speech."

Whom should you trust?

Given the Qur'an's command for the faithful to wage jihad against unbelievers, and Mohammed's belief and practice that "War is deceit," what relevance does this story from Iraq have for the trustworthiness of those Muslims on whom President Bush and his administration rely regarding Islam (Norquist, CAIR, etc.)?

From Jihad Watch:
The Iraqi authorities say that they have arrested the leaders of three terror networks operating around Baghdad, two of which were headed by an interior ministry official. General Bassem al-Gharawy told the German newsagency DPA that the third network was headed by the manager of a private investment company.

The networks were based in the al-Ghazaliya and al-Jihad to the west of Baghdad. ''The arrests were carried out in a legal manner, the detainees confessed to have carried out robberies, murders and have set off bombs' al-Gharawy said. 'The task of the interior ministry official was to provide weapons, equipment and official documents to facilitate their operations,' he added."

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Essential background on the Palestinian "issue"

From Dhimmi Watch: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict in brief

Stand with Israel against Allah: "I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you."

Over the nearly fourteen centuries of violent jihad, one factor that allowed its advance through the Middle East, western and eastern Europe, North Africa, and Asia was that its Infidel targets mounted no unified defense against it.

Rivalries between peoples and kings, grudges, ambition, and a lack of communication saw numerous nations fall to Islam which otherwise may have been able to not only stop, but crush, it.

Today, with our knowledge of history, our ability to communicate instantly, and the military technological advantage we possess, it would take little more than non-Muslim leaders telling the truth about Islam for it to be pushed back to the borders of Muslim lands and constrained until it collapsed under the weight of its own barbarism and ignorance.

Unfortunately, our political, media, and academic elites have been been ignorant cowards.

One by one, ancient lands fell under the sword of Mohammed. Today, the non-Muslim nation closest to being slaughtered to Allah's glory is Israel. Israel may be the main target today, but after they fall, guess who's next?

From Robert Spencer:

Israel stands virtually alone in the world not only because of lingering antisemitism, but because Palestinian Arabs and their allies have succeeded in convincing opinion-makers that their land was taken illegitimately by Israel, and that they are oppressed there. The facts are otherwise, as I have discussed in a previous article here. The state was established legitimately and with the approval of the United Nations, and even the "occupied territories" were obtained according to what have been universally recognized throughout history as the rules of war. (Or should the United States give up the "occupied territories" of California, Texas, and other Western states? Should Russia withdraw from its "occupied territories" in Konigsberg, eastern Finland and eastern Poland? Should Muslims across North Africa, the Middle East, Iran, India and Southeast Asia withdraw from those "occupied territories" back to Arabia?) While I am sympathetic to genuine Palestinian Arab refugees, and with my friends from Ramallah and Jenin, I can't help but notice the role of the neighboring Arab states in exacerbating and prolonging the refugee problem for political reasons that are ultimately rooted in the jihad ideology. I can't help but notice that I was able to visit the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Mount Tabor, and other Christian holy sites in Israel, which mean a great deal to me personally, while Bethlehem, under Palestinian Authority control, has become a dangerous place from which Christians are fleeing as quickly as they can. I can't help but notice that there was no call to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza between 1948 and 1967, when those territories were under Jordanian and Egyptian control respectively -- despite the alleged difference of nationality between Palestinians and Jordanians and Egyptians.

Ultimately, if the nations of the world are interested in defending universal human rights and the equality of dignity of all people, they need to stand with Israel. Misdiagnosis of the problem -- that is, the unwillingness or inability of Western governments to acknowledge the motives and goals of the jihadists who want above all to destroy them -- has largely prevented this.

Yet as Benjamin Franklin said long ago in a far different context, we must all hang together, or we will most assuredly all hang separately.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

To Whom we should give thanks

From Joseph Farah: Thankful for what?:
I walked through a public elementary school this week and looked at the Thanksgiving artwork produced by the kids.

These poor kids don't have a clue about the meaning of the holiday. They are being intentionally deceived about its origins. They are not even given a hint as to the spiritual nature of the historical event.

That's not separation of church and state. That's separation of education from reality.

There's a rich tradition for this holiday that dates back, not just through American history, but thousands of years through the history of the Hebrew people.

It's true. That's where the Pilgrims got the idea for the feast – from the Bible.

I count 28 references to the word thanksgiving in the King James Bible – all but six in the Old Testament. For the ancient children of Israel, thanksgiving was a time of feasting and fasting, of praising God, of singing songs. It was a rich celebration – and still is for observant Jews today.

William Bradford, the leader of the Pilgrims, studied the Hebrew scriptures. The Pilgrims took them very seriously. The idea of giving thanks to God with a feast was inspired by that knowledge of the Bible. In a very real way, the Pilgrims saw themselves, too, as chosen people of God being led to a Promised Land.

At the table, they acknowledged "God's good providence" and "blessed the God of Heaven who brought us over the furious ocean." For "what could sustain us but the Spirit of God and His grace?" asked Bradford. He then quoted Moses, "Our fathers cried unto Him and He heard their voice and looked on their adversity" (Deuteronomy 26:7).

In addition to proclaiming a day of thanksgiving, like the ancient Hebrews did before them, Bradford and his flock also praised God's loving kindness, the famous refrain of Psalms 106 and 107 and Jewish liturgy ("Give thanks to the Lord for He is good, for His kindness endures forever").

The "thanksgiving" idea took different forms in colonial America. It wasn't until George Washington, the republic's first president, proclaimed Nov. 26, 1789, as a day for thanking God for bringing America through its trials, that an official holiday was marked.

Washington, too, was a student of the Hebrew scriptures. He believed with all his heart that America would be blessed only if it acknowledged the source of all blessings.

Here's what he proclaimed Oct. 3, 1789:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly implore His protection and favor; and whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to recommend to the people of the United States a day of Public Thanksgiving and Prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the twenty-six of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that Great and Glorious Being, who is the Beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country, previous to their becoming a nation; for the single manifold mercies, and the favorable interposition's of His providence, in the courage and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish Constitutions of Government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the Great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private institutions, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discretely and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us) and to bless them with good governments, peace and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science, among them and us; and generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

(By the way, some revisionist historians have tried to suggest Washington was not a Christian, but a deist. You need only read this one proclamation to put to rest such fanciful ideas.)

Later, in 1863, with the nation torn asunder by the War Between the States, Lincoln re-instituted the tradition for two years. Again, in 1941, with a global war threatening, Congress established the fourth Thursday of November as the day for Americans to thank God.

That's right – I said to thank God.

That's what it is all about. That's what it has always been about. It's not about Indians. It's not about turkey. It's not about squash or sweet potatoes or pumpkin pie.

It's about celebrating all that God has done for us. And He has surely blessed America for more than 200 years.

Monday, November 21, 2005

Senate adopts 'exit strategy' from reality (and patriotism)

Mark Steyn again gets right to the point:
A busy time in the U.S. Senate, the "world's greatest deliberative body." Judging from the 2006 conference report, the Senate subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education -- Chairman Arlen Specter (R), ranking member Tom Harkin (D) -- has been deliberating especially hard:

"Sec. 221. (a) The Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center Building (Building 21) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is hereby renamed as the Arlen Specter Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center.

(b) The Global Communications Center Building (Building 19) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is hereby renamed as the Thomas R. Harkin Global Communications Center."

Good to see that even in the viciously partisan atmosphere of today's politics, Republicans and Democrats can still work together to carry out the people's business. In the same spirit, I wonder whether the Senate chamber itself should not be renamed the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi United States Senate. With increasingly rare exceptions, just about everything that emerges from the chamber tends to support the Zarqawi view of Iraq -- that this is a psychological war in which the Great Satan is an effete wimp who can be worn down and chased back to his La-Z-Boy recliner in Florida.

Last week, the Republican majority, to their disgrace and with 13 honorable exceptions, passed an amendment calling on the administration to lay out its "plan" for "ending" the war and withdrawing U.S. troops. They effectively signed on to the Democrat framing of the debate: that the only thing that matters is the so-called exit strategy. The only difference between Bill Frist's mushy Republicans and Harry Reid's shameless Democrats is that the latter want to put a firm date on withdrawal, so that Zarqawi's insurgents can schedule an especially big car bomb to coincide with the formal handover of the Great Satan's cojones.

"Exit strategy" is a defeatist's term. The only exit strategy that matters was summed up by George M. Cohan in the song the Doughboys sang as they marched off to the Great War nine decades ago:

"And we won't come back

Till it's over

Over there!"

And that's the timetable, too. If you want it fleshed out a bit, how about this? "The key issue is no longer WMD or even the role of the U.N. The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail.'' That's Goh Chok Tong speaking in Washington last year. Unfortunately, he's not a U.S. senator, but the prime minister of Singapore, and thus ineligible to run, on the grounds that he's not a citizen of Blowhardistan. What does the Senate's revolting amendment tell America's enemies (Zarqawi) and "friends" (Chirac) about her will to prevail?

Any great power -- never mind the preeminent power of the age -- should be engaged with the world. That means, among other things, that it has a presence in those parts of the globe that are critical to its interest. For two years, the Democrats have assiduously peddled the line that Bush "lied" about Iraq. A slightly less contemptible class of critic has sneered that the administration never had any plans for postwar Iraq, hadn't a clue what it was getting into, couldn't tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shia and a Kurd if they were painted different colors and had neon signs flashing off the top of their heads. If there's anything to this feeble second-guessing, it's that the U.S. government simply didn't know enough about Iraq -- and, in a crude sense, they're right. U.S. taxpayers would be justified, for example, in feeling they're not getting their $44 billion worth from the intelligence community.

But the only way to know the country is to be there on the ground, in some form or other. I'm all for "Iraqification" -- though those Democrats urgently demanding everything be done by the locals will be the first to shriek in horror once the Iraqis start serious score-settling with the foreign insurgents. But, even with full-scale Iraqification, America would be grossly irresponsible if not clinically insane not to maintain some sort of small residual military presence somewhere in the western desert.

Sorry, but that's part of the deal of being the world's hyperpower. To pretend otherwise is an exit strategy from reality. If you're worried about the ''cost,'' stop garrisoning your wealthiest allies -- Germany, Japan et al. -- and thereby absolving them from stepping up to the traditional responsibilities of nationhood.

One expects nothing from the Democrats. Their leaders are men like Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia, who in 2002 voted for the war and denounced Saddam Hussein as an "imminent threat" and claimed that Iraq could have nuclear weapons by 2007 if not earlier. Now he says it's Bush who "lied" his way into war with a lot of scary mumbo-jumbo about WMD.

What does Rockefeller believe, really? I know what Bush believes: He thought Saddam should go in 2002 and today he's glad he's gone, as am I. I know what, say, Michael Moore believes: He wanted to leave Saddam in power in 2002, and today he thinks the "insurgents" are the Iraqi version of America's Minutemen. But what do Rockefeller and Reid and Kerry believe deep down? That voting for the war seemed the politically expedient thing to do in 2002 but that they've since done the math and figured that pandering to the moveon.org crowd is where the big bucks are? If Bush is the new Hitler, these small hollow men are the equivalent of those grubby little Nazis whose whining defense was, "I was only obeying orders. I didn't really mean all that strutting tough-guy stuff." And, before they huff, "How dare you question my patriotism?", well, yes, I am questioning your patriotism -- because you're failing to meet the challenge of the times. Thanks to you, Iraq is a quagmire -- not in the Sunni Triangle, where U.S. armed forces are confident and effective, but on the home front, where soft-spined national legislators have turned the war into one almighty Linguini Triangle.

It's easy to laugh at the empty shell of a Jay Rockefeller, bragging about how he schmoozed Bashar Assad, dictator of a terrorist state, about Bush's war intentions. But look at the news from France and ask yourself what that's really about? At heart, it's the failure of Europe's political class to grasp the profound and rapid changes already under way. This Senate is making the same fatal error. I'd advocate throwing the bums out if there were any alternative bums to throw in. But maybe the Thomas R. Harkin Centers for Disease Control could persuade them to be the first deliberative body to donate itself to medical science.

Darwinism, the real "phony theory"

LGF posted two blurbs defending "science" from the "superstitious," first from Charles Krauthammer (usually exceptional on items of national interest) and then from the Vatican

In Krauthammer's "Phony Theory, False Conflict" he writes:
Let’s be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological “theory” whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge — in this case, evolution — they are to be filled by God.
As far as I have heard, Intelligent Design does two things: it points out flaws with Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and offers as an alternative to the ascientific concepts of abiogenesis and macroevolution the quite reasonable suggestion that the obvious purpose, design, and complexity of Life must be due to an Intellect.

Whatever definition of ID one uses, the real "phony theory" is Darwinism. Here's why:

Science is a way of knowing. It depends on strict adherence to certain principles for it to be useful at all. Real Science requires that a phenomenon be observable, measurable, testable, and that whatever truth claims one makes must be verified using repeated applications of the Scientific Method.

Unfortunately, Darwinists use the word "Science" to mean atheistic naturalism, and they use it to dismiss as "backwards", "medieval", or "superstitious" anyone who dares to criticize their philosophy.

A Designer greater than and outside Nature is beyond Man's ability to study in a laboratory, and since no human being was around to observe the Origins of the Species, both the idea of a hyper-intelligent Designer and Darwinism's abiogenesis/macroevolution are extra-scientific; they are beyond the bounds of what Science can know.

Since Science can tell us nothing of Beginnings, it is Darwinism that is intellectually dishonest. Is is the fraud. It claims to be Science when in fact it is not only without empirical support for anything beyond microevolution (such random, minor, genetic mutations usually devastate or kill an organism), much of what is scientifically-verifiable contradicts it.

So, a challenge for the Darwinists: Apart from the random, minor, genetic mutations that occur within an organism (which have never been observed to result in newer, more complex genetic program, stucture, or function) what is actually, scientifically, empirically true about Darwinism?
It is a “theory” that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species [emphasis mine] but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, “I think I’ll make me a lemur today.” A “theory” that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science — that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution — or behind the motion of the tides or the “strong force” that holds the atom together?
Here Krauthammer gets one right. Genetic mutations can result (when the organism survives) in changes within species. It does not result in newer, more complex, different kinds of animals. There is no empirical evidence demonstrating the massive number of transitional forms even Darwin admitted necessary to substantiating his explanation for Origins.

Krauthammer also hints at the fatal flaw of Darwinism: its theory of Origins is not only without empirical evidence for gradual transitional forms, it is contradicted by a growing body of scientific knowledge and human experience.
In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase “ natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us,” thus unmistakably implying — by fiat of definition, no less — that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.
For Science to actually be Science, it must deal with that which is observable, testable, and verifiable. Since it cannot observe, test, or verify anything with regard to what occurred in the ancient past, but only with regard to what is happening now, Darwinism's Origins cannot be Science.
The school board thinks it is indicting evolution by branding it an “unguided process” with no “discernible direction or goal.” This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an “unguided process” by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an “unguided process” of molecular interactions without “purpose”? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?
How does Krauthammer know that there is nothing (or no One) sustaining all things in Nature? Is he omniscient? Of course not, for that would make him God, Whom he seems so determined to discredit.
He may be, of course. But that discussion is the province of religion, not science.
That's better.

For the same reason the workings of God in Nature cannot belong to Science (no man can observe, test, and verify them), Darwin's explanations of the Origin(s) of Life and the Species must also be excluded from its realm.
The relentless attempt to confuse the two by teaching warmed-over creationism as science can only bring ridicule to religion, gratuitously discrediting a great human endeavor and our deepest source of wisdom precisely about those questions — arguably, the most important questions in life — that lie beyond the material.
If the Creation account in Genesis is false, then the God Who claimed to speak and it was so is a liar. In that case, all His morality is a fiction and should be discarded. This is why those who believe in an omnipotent, benevolent Creator must oppose Darwinism's anti-scientific elements.

It also why Darwinists must do everything they can to sustain their false worldview.

-------------------------------------

Posted with Krauthammer's contemptous anti-Christian contrivance:
VATICAN CITY, Nov. 18, 2005 (The Canadian Press delivered by Newstex) — The Vatican’s chief astronomer said Friday that “intelligent design” isn’t science and doesn’t belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.
That is fine. At least tell the truth about Darwinism's utter uselessness in accounting for the Origins of the Species.
Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was “wrong” and was akin to mixing apples and oranges.
If you try to separate religion and science, and science is defined in terms of what is rational, provable, and true, then what does that make religion? By conceding that false dichotomy, the battle is already lost.

-------------------------------------

Following are responses to some of the reader comments on the article.

#10 TMF 11/20/2005 08:28AM PST wrote:
Lets stop creating false dichotomys.

Science is science. Evolution is science, despite the presence of well known gaps and flaws in the theory, it has largely been proven, with evidence in the fossil record.
This is not true. Darwin expected the fossil record to support his ideas, and he admitted that without numerous transitional forms his theory was dead. Unfortunately for him, he didn't anticipate the fanaticism of the atheistic naturalists and their willingness to fabricate and fictionalize.
That said, any self proclaimed secularist/materialist who believes that the march of consciousness from subatomic particles through amino acids through protozoa through plants and animals, all the way up to the miracles of human accomplishment was the mere result of logarithmic probabilities or whatever Daniel Dennett is claiming these days, certainly push the enevlope of credulity.
Well said.

-------------------------------------

#11 FrogMarch 11/20/2005 08:28AM PST wrote:
The thing is - one can believe in GOD and evolution.

Scientists do it all the time.

I agree with Krauthammer on this.
Certain gods can be believed along with Darwinism, but not the God of Israel. He says He made everything perfect and it was very good. Christ referred to Genesis as literal.

Evolutionists believe Life formed through a process of chance, bitter agony, and death.

There can be no compromise; the two ideas are completely irreconcilable.

-------------------------------------

#13 ibrodsky 11/20/2005 08:30AM PST wrote:
Krauthammer is wrong on this. Intelligent design does not equal creationism. There are a number of facts that don't seem to jive with evolution. For example, could an eye evolve? If so, from what? And why do even the simplest organisms have the same sophisticated genetic machinery that humans do?
That's called Irreducible Complexity, and it is a powerful scientific (that means empirical, verifiable) argument disproving Darwinism's explanation for Origins.

Additionally, the design and complexity of a human cell argues powerfully against the Chance + Time + Matter + Energy formula of the Evolutionists and for the idea that Omniscience created Life.

A human cell is a Von Neumann-type metabolic machine. It monitors, repairs, and replicates itself according to its genetic program, a program so complex that (according to one Darwinist) its code if printed on paper would be enough to fill hundreds of volumes of 500-page books (small font, no pictures).

No rational human being (don't Darwinists consider themselves supremely rational, especially when compared to the hopelessly backwards religious-types?) would ever assert that the computer on which you are reading this post spontaneously arose due only to the random interactions of the matter of which it is composed, time, and energy. Yet that is what the Darwinists would coerce all others to accept regarding Life.
As someone who is largely sympathetic with evolution and a fan of Darwin, I must note that today many evolutionists have become the non-thinking ideologues they have long accused their critics of being. There are legitimate questions about whether design has played a role in the development of life. Evolutionists tend to dismiss these questions. But when dealing with something about which we have only the most primitive knowledge, it's unwise to rule out theories just because you don't like the political or religious implications.
Which is the reason Darwinism is so staunchly defended by the true believers, and those who disagree are (usually) so vehemently attacked.

-------------------------------------

#15 mich-again 11/20/2005 08:30AM PST wrote:
I don't have the blind faith it takes to be atheist and go along with the absolutely crazy notion that DNA just appeared one day in the primordial soup. That notion is just as ridiculous as the story from Genesis of Noah gathering all the animal species on Earth to save them from the great flood on his ark.
When, in the history of Man, has anyone observed a program arising apart from a Programmer (or one of His programs)? Never. All scientific evidence, all human experience, shows that Life only arises from Life and Life's programs.

(By the way, the Noah account does not say "species"; that is a scientific term not-yet-coined at the time the events it describes took place.)

-------------------------------------

#16 Killgore Trout 11/20/2005 08:30AM PST wrote:
I find it embarrassing that creationism is making a comeback in this country. It does not bode well for our future to create a generation of scientifically illiterate children. You can belive in creationism if you want to, just keep it out of science classes.
I would prefer real Science be taught, which would mean real Critical Thinking and analysis, not Darwinism.

-------------------------------------

#19 MJ 11/20/2005 08:32AM PST wrote:
You're kidding, right? By that logic, a predominately Muslim school board can "have their first amendment right include" a course called "Jihad has a moral obligation" in their curricula "if they want to". Sorry, but Majorities do not have the right to impose their religious beliefs on minorities in this country.
But real scientific truth should be taught, not someone's unsubstantiated atheistic fantasy.

-------------------------------------

#23 Spiny Norman 11/20/2005 08:35AM PST wrote:
No, they don't. They merely point out the obvious, that religion is by definition unscientific. They do not say believers are stupid.
By definition, religion is not science. That does not mean it is void of scientific truth or contrary to Science. I would argue that when Science does its job and refrains from venturing into the realm of that which it is unable to examine, there is great harmony between Genesis and Science.

(Darwinists do often say religious people are stupid, either explicitly or by the implication of accepting what naturalists define as "unscientific", as this author just did).

-------------------------------------

#27 BPP 11/20/2005 08:38AM PST wrote:
No one ever said that believing in evolution (which is NOT, by the way, "a series of happy accidents") is easier than believing in ID. On the contrary, believing in the supernatural is always easier, as it does not require the rigor that science requires to be believable. That is why ID or creationism has been what most people believe for most of human history.
What is unbelievable is that anyone would try to equate rigor with Darwinism and exclude from it religion (at least Christianity).

It does not take "rigor" to make up stories originally without any real scientific foundation, as Darwin did in the nineteenth century, and then to--in spite of the accumulating scientific evidence against it--adhere to the bankrupt ideology at all costs.

"Obtuseness" perhaps, but I wouldn't call it "rigor."

(And this author's chrono-centrism is pretty outlandish also. A people's living in an earlier time doesn't mean their reason or intellect are inferior to more recent people, just their technology).
And this is the point. If we teach ID as part of the science curriculum and in so doing, water down the definition of science, then what we are really doing is destroying the ability of children to think like scientists.
To believe Darwinism in light of what is known to be true, one must water down the definition of Science. Believing what is contrary to reason unavoidably destroys the ability of children to think as a scientist should.
And thinking like a scientist is hard. Scientists formulate theories based on evidence and then test those theories with experiments that yield more evidence. A theory must be supported by evidence to remain viable and must be rejected if such evidence does not exist. It is that evidence-based thought process, more than anything else, that is responsible for the progress and wealth that we in the West enjoy. To destroy that thought process, or to belittle it, is to jeopardize the very foundation of the glory of our civilization.
And tragically, all of these truths are violated for an atheistic, naturalistic philosophy.

-------------------------------------

#40 Condor 11/20/2005 08:48AM PST observed:
New ideas that challenge the existing concepts never have an easy road.

The germ theory was ridiculed when first proposed; everyone in medical science knew that disease was caused by an imbalance in the humors; and that bleeding was the best treatment around. Pasteur was ridiculed for teaching about "little beasties" that inhabited our bodies.

Bleeding had been around as a treatment since Hippocrates, and who was Pasteur to think he was right, when all science was opposed to him?

New ideas are always ridiculed at first; then vehemently opposed; but afterwards, they are always regarded as obvious.
And some false theories die hard.

Darwinism is the last century's Phlogiston.

-------------------------------------

#45 Mentat 11/20/2005 08:51AM PST posted:
Here's the deal. There is no conflict between science and religion as long as the god you believe in doesn't do anything.

...And for those who don't immediately "get" the above quotation, let me spell it out for you - if your god actually intervenes in the workings of the world - i.e. changes the laws of physics, creates earthquakes, starts volcanoes or hurricanes, etc. - then science and religion are definitely in conflict as your god is constantly in there changing the workings of the universe. However, if your god doesn't do anything like the above, science and religion cannot possibly be in conflict.
Which is why there can be no compromise between the God of the Bible and Darwinism's abiogenesis/macroevolution. The former says He did it, the latter says He did not.

Evolutionists wish their story to be true so that there is no God Who watches Man and cares about what we do.

Additionally, Science is not atheistic naturalism; it is a process by which human beings discover and come to understand that which can be observed. It is a discovering of what is, not what might have been.

-------------------------------------

#46 ibrodsky 11/20/2005 08:51AM PST correctly observed:
After more than 100 years of investigation and experimentation, no one has ever shown how one species can evolve into another. Doesn't that make some of you at least admit that evolution is seriously incomplete? Given that, is it wise to rule out alternative theories?
And the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of new forms, not a multitude of numerous transitional forms, as Darwin rightly acknowledged his theory needed.
Our understanding of genetics shows that two simple cells can combine and build a complex organism. Clearly, these simple cells contain a blueprint (design). Why is it considered unscientific to at least wonder if the genetic machinery itself came from a blueprint?
Because to have the fantasy proven false would destroy their worldview. It would be to show the man behind the curtain is only a man.

-------------------------------------

#50 Havoc 11/20/2005 08:54AM PST wrote:
This is terribly amusing.

Why is EVERYONE so threatened by a basic fact?

Complex systems, i.e. it takes five separate systems, each complex in itself, --- operating in Co-ordination for Vision to occur.

No one system has any usefullness in itself, alone, -- cannot be explained has having evolved out of nothing for a separate purpose, then to get Five Separate Systems to evolve together ?

Neither has there ever been a "Mechanism", discovered that change one structure into another.

The finch beaks, false, variation in color a minor camo change in months and birds, the "Artists rendition" of embryo "evolution" proven False, Java Man, a hoax, all proven false, where you ask -- UC Berkeley Dept. Micro Biology.

Even the Guru of unifying theory of Biochem doesn't believe in evolution any longer.

Where's the Science, Where's the provable evolutionary mechanism.

From the goo to the zoo to you ... sounds like blind faith to me....

a religion no less....gasp !

If genetic mutation is such a great thing -- bring on the Nukes.

-------------------------------------

#55 blutonazi98 11/20/2005 08:57AM PST commented:
I believe in ID (in micro and macro level) that being said it should not be taught as science. Anything that has the conclusion already drawn before any scientific testing begins does not follow the scientific method. Therefore it should not be taught as science. Just like evolution at some levels should not be taught as fact when its assumptions are wrong or not testable
And that's the trouble with Darwinism: it takes one minor empirical bit of evidence (that minor, random genetic mutations occur within an organism over time) and from that extrapolates an entire atheistic, naturalistic worldview.

It creates a fiction about extant matter (without explaining how it came to exist), time, energy, and randomness (the antithesis of design) interacting to form the most complex machines known to Man--himself.

No rational, clear-thinking person would claim that a supercomputer naturally and spontaneously arose from only its constituent matter apart from an intellect, yet that is what Darwinists want humanity to believe.

Not only is this nonsense, it is more than counterintuitive--it contradicts all the relevant evidence. Without the ability to observe, test, and repeat such observations and testing, there is no Science. In the case of Darwinian abiogenesis/macroevolution, you've got not Science, but science fiction.

-------------------------------------

#60 Gambisin 11/20/2005 09:01AM PST
The longer I spent as a scientist, the more deeply I found myself believing in God, the more glorious He seemed.

Science is about NOTHING more than empirical fact, about avoiding anything based on faith.

Science is SUPPOSED to be limited to ONLY what we mere mortals can prove. Science is the mechanics of experimentation. God is far bigger than that and belongs in the places where math and test tubes aren't needed.
So far, so good. Science cannot address that which is beyond its sphere of observation.
I agree with Krauthammer and the Vatican.
Oh well.
Public schools are for learning the empirical. Faith and THE Designer, were things I always wanted my children to learn from me and the Church.
God belongs in religion and philosophy class, not science.
The problem is that abiogenesis and macroevolution--the elements of Darwinism that contradict the God of the Bible--are not empirical. They are suppositions uncritically accepted by Darwinists in face of contradictory evidence.

And God is a God of history, not philosophy.

Iran (not North Korea) threat to U.S. like Nazi Germany

Yes, Kim Jong-Il is a threat. Communist China is a threat. But Islam with the will and means to wage Jihad is actually at war with us now. (Regardless, why try to change the subject, unless you're defending Islam?)

It is Islam that commands the fighting against, subduing, and killing of non-Muslims. It is Iran that has taken up the cause of Allah. It is Iran that longs for the worldwide dominance of Sharia (the absolute rule of Islamic law). It is Iran that has clearly stated its desire for "Death to America!" and is developing its nuclear capability. It is Iran that has sponsored terrorism beyond its borders.

From WND.com:
The threat posed to the national security of the United States by Iran was likened only to the one posed by Nazi Germany in the 1930s, by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who suggested Tehran could be planning for a pre-emptive nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack on America that would turn a third or more of the country "back to a 19th century level of development."

Gingrich made the stunning statements, which echo warning of other congressional leaders and national security experts, in testimony before a subcommittee of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last week.

He said the "extraordinary challenge that the current regime in Iran poses to the safety of the United States" requires "extraordinary measures to meet it."

"Not since the failure of the League of Nations in the 1930s to confront the aggression of the dictatorships in Japan, Italy and Germany have we seen the willful avoidance of reality which is now underway with regard to Iran," said Gingrich. "There are lessons to be learned from the 1930s and those lessons apply directly to the current government of Iran."

Gingrich pointed with alarm at a report first published in G2 Bulletin that Iran had tested the firing of ballistic missiles from a merchant ship in which warheads were detonated in midair over the Caspian Sea rather than at a land or sea target. National security experts and scientists commissioned by Congress to study the threat of electromagnetic pulse attacks on the U.S. concluded that Iran was preparing for just such a scenario. So does Gingrich.

"In short, a country with a track record of carrying out its murderous ideology may soon have the capability to deliver on its publicly declared and unambiguously stated intentions to inflict mortal harm on the United States on a massive scale," warned Gingrich last Tuesday at the hearing of the Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security Subcommittee chaired by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. "A nuclear tipped intermediate-range Iranian missile launched from a merchant ship off the coast of the United States could do just that. That, or Iran could simply supply its terrorist handmaidens with a small scale nuclear device to use against U.S. targets here at home or abroad."

The threat is compounded by recent disclosures by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran is in "non-compliance" with its treaty obligations against developing nuclear weapons.

Gingrich concluded that:

* Iran is the most dangerous regime in the world and the "single most urgent threat to American national security."

* The threat can only be understood in the context of "The Long War Against the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam, which is a worldwide war in which the United States and its allies are unavoidably engaged, and in which the U.S. has active campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan."

* The U.S. cannot be held hostage or rendered impotent by delays of international bureaucracies in dealing with the threat posed by Iran.

* One key to preventing or degrading the Iranian nuclear threat is persuading Russia to stop helping Tehran.

* The U.S. has no option but to seek regime change in Iran.

Gingrich said there are reasons to believe Iran "is testing the capability to launch a surprise attack on the United States from a merchant ship of our coasts."

"An attack by a single Iranian nuclear missile could have a catastrophic impact on the United States by causing an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) over a portion of the country," he said. "Such an attack could quickly turn a third or more of the United States back to a 19th century level of development. Electrical transformers and switching stations would fall. Without electricity, hospitals would fails, water and sewage services would fail, gas stations would be unable to provide petroleum, trucks would not be able to distribute food supplies, and essential services would rapidly disintegrate."

Gingrich said "this is not idle speculation, but taken from the consensus findings of nine distinguished scientists who authored the Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, which was delivered to the Congress on June 22, 2004, the same day the 9-11 commission report was published."

Gingrich pointed out that such a sneak attack – especially if launched from a merchant ship at sea – could have the added benefit of deniability by Iran.

"Contemplating an EMP threat makes more troubling reports that certain Iranian missile tests resulted in missiles that have detonated in flight at or near apogee, which the Iranian press has reported as successful events," explained Gingrich. "Normally, it would be expected that the ability to target specific locations would be the standard for success for ballistic tests. However, if the ability to launch an EMP attack was being tested, detonation at apogee would be the measure of testing success. As noted by the EMP commission, a country with limited nuclear capabilities and few choices as to delivery platforms has only a few options to deliver a deadly blow. An EMP attack would be on such strategy."

Today, Iranian lawmakers approved a bill requiring the government to block inspections of atomic facilities if the International Atomic Energy Agency refers Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

When the bill becomes law, it will strengthen the government's hand in resisting international pressure to permanently abandon uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for either nuclear reactors or nuclear bombs.

Iran resumed uranium-reprocessing activities a step before enrichment at its Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility in August.

Last week, WND and G2 Bulletin reported most of the U.S. civilian population, military bases and nuclear-weapons assembly plants are within range of missile attacks by terrorists or rogue nations using merchant ships as launching platforms – an increasing concern by counter-terrorism and national security experts.

G2 Bulletin and WND first reported the shocking findings of the U.S. EMP commission that rogue nations, such as Iran and North Korea, have the capability of launching an undetected, catastrophic EMP attack on the U.S. – and are actively developing plans.

"These electromagnetic pulses propagate from the burst point of the nuclear weapon to the line of sight on the Earth's horizon, potentially covering a vast geographic region in doing so simultaneously, moreover, at the speed of light," said Dr. Lowell Wood, acting chairman of the commission appointed by Congress to study the threat. "For example, a nuclear weapon detonated at an altitude of 400 kilometers over the central United States would cover, with its primary electromagnetic pulse, the entire continent of the United States and parts of Canada and Mexico."

The commission, in its work over a period of several years, found that EMP is one of a small number of threats that has the potential to hold American society seriously at risk and that might also result in the defeat of U.S. military forces.

"The electromagnetic field pulses produced by weapons designed and deployed with the intent to produce EMP have a high likelihood of damaging electrical power systems, electronics and information systems upon which any reasonably advanced society, most specifically including our own, depend vitally," Wood said. "Their effects on systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity and electronics could be sufficiently ruinous as to qualify as catastrophic to the American nation."

The commission concluded in its report to Congress earlier this year: "EMP is one of a small number of threats that may hold at risk the continued existence of today's U.S. civil society.''

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Liberal elite desire power at all costs

Military fears critics will hurt morale:
Pentagon officials say they are increasingly worried that Washington's political fight over the Iraq war will dampen what has been high morale among troops fighting a tenacious and deadly enemy.

Commanders are telling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that ground troops do not understand the generally negative press that their missions receive, despite what they consider significant achievements in rebuilding Iraq and instilling democracy.

The commanders also worry about the public's declining support for the mission and what may be a growing movement inside the Democratic Party to advocate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

'They say morale is very high,' said a senior Pentagon official of reports filed by commanders with Washington. 'But they relate comments from troops asking, 'What the heck is going on back here' and why America isn't seeing the progress they are making or appreciating the mission the way those on the ground there do. My take is that they are wondering if America is still behind them.'
The problem is that the pro-Democratic, anti-America, anti-Christian political and media elite are so desperate for power that they will do anything to regain it, even if it results in harm to America's best and--in the long-run--the nation's demise.

With patriots like these, who needs insurgents?

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

What CAIR doesn't want you to know (and how they try to prevent you from knowing it)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has issued a press release trying to intimidate and defame Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and someone who has always been decent and fair in evaluating Islam.

Following are my comments on CAIR's deceit.
It should be obvious from their press release that CAIR loves irony:
"The Washington-based council said the growing level of Islamophobic rhetoric in American society prompts some individuals to turn their hate-filled views into violent actions."
(Like in France? Israel? Madrid? Denmark? Sudan? Indonesia? London? Bali...?)

Does CAIR mean that the faithful will (again) use demonstrably-true factual statements about Islam and its (false) prophet as a justification for (more) violence against infidels?
"Just yesterday, CAIR urged a Los Angeles synagogue that hosted a speech by Robert Spencer, the operator of a virulently anti- Muslim website..."
So, telling the truth to non-Muslims about Islam's "sacred" texts, theology, jurisprudence, and history is "anti-Muslim"?

Someone ought to tell Allah!
"...to offer its congregation a more balanced perspective on Islam."
So, CAIR rejects the Qur'an's commands to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," and, "Fight against the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya"?

Now that would be a revelation ! (In reality, they consider "balanced" a euphemism for "false")
"Comments and articles on Spencer's site, which is used as reference by a number of Islamophobic commentators, compare Muslims to animals and Nazis ..."
Interestingly, it was Hitler's mufti, not his pope, who aided and encouraged the slaughter of millions of Jews.
"and portray Islam as an inherently violent faith that must be confronted."
Since CAIR can't (truthfully) deny the first half of that statement, it must be the "confronting" to which they object!
"New comments on that site today include "death to islam (sic)," "islam must be destroyed..destroy islam (sic)," "ISLAM = DEADLY PARASITE," and "Islam IS the NAZISM of our generation."
Let's see...

-an ideology that requires purifying its people by destroying the impure? Check!

-the use of force to subdue or destroy those who fail to embrace the ideology? Check!

-special vehemence and violence (even genocide) reserved for the people of Israel? Double Check!

It would appear Islam has been the Nazism of the last one and one-half millennia.

Certainly, no decent person would advocate murdering innocents, unless of course the "decent" person were Mohammed (or one of his followers) and the "innocents" non-Muslims (who can never be truly innocent, since they oppose Allah).

Only two groups of people can deny the essential hatred and violence of Islam: those ignorant of Qur'anic Islam's doctrine and practice over the last fourteen centuries, and those who would keep them ignorant for Islam's advantage.