But in a Libertarian society, who would regulate Monsanto?

My Libertarian credentials and activities are now out there to the point that I'm no longer introduced as Whited, the shipping manager, or Whited, the father of The Aggie. 

I'm now Whited, the Libertarian. 

Here's the conversation that comes up about 50% of the time:

Whited: Nice to meet you!

Statist Slave: You too.  Hey, how can you be a Libertarian when they want to let Monsanto poison people and create Godzilla corn and torture puppies? 

Whited: Who told you that? 

Statist Slave: Well, you guys are always in favor of the big corporations, and....

Whited: No, no, no, we're not in favor of the big corporations.  We're pro-free market. 

Statist Slave: But if you have nothing but unfettered capitalism, corporations like Monsanto will continue to steal our Bibles, and dig up the bodies of our ancestors for target practice. 

And so it goes.....

Seriously, here's what works best.  There's lots of confusion out there about "less regulation" and "holding people to account for harming others".  There's almost total ignorance about Public Choice Theory and Regulatory Capture. 

Ask your friend which corporations he fears.  You're going to hear about Monsanto, some military contractors, Wal-Mart, and global multinationals.  That's it.  Not the agricultural subsidy hawgs, the green energy scammers or G.E. 

Ask why they are afraid of these companies.  You're going to hear about corporate oppression, advertising that allows us no choice because we're so susceptible to marketing, underpaid workers, and harm to the environment. 

Take 'em on one at a time.  Monsanto OWNS the FDA.  And the EPA. There's nothing but a very well-lubricated turnstile between those three organizations.   Go here for details.  (This is called "regulatory capture", but taken to the 10th power in this case.  Most government agencies wind up defending their regulated companies from competitors.  In Monsanto's case, the regulators are Monsanto.  Truly amazing) 

Ask what they want the government to do to Monsanto.  They'll state that they want GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms) labeled as such.

 (Full Disclosure: I can't stand Monsanto, but it's because of the Monsanto Protection Act, which essentially states that if a GMO crop goes bad or turns out to be dangerous, Uncle Sam is obliged to purchase the crop.  With your money.  That's why I turn up at every Monsanto protest within 50 miles of Cowtown.)   

There are other ways to do this without getting government munchkins and pygmies involved.  Look to the example of Kosher foods.  Underwriters Laboratories.  The same thing could be put in place for GMO's.  But if they think the FDA (also known as Monsanto) is going to require Monsanto (also known as the FDA) to label GMO's, it ain't going to happen. 

We're getting close to the end here.  Hang with me.  At this point, my new friend, who is going to avoid me until he starts making a lot of money and feeling guilty about seeking tax shelters, is getting uncomfortable. 

Ask about Farmer's Markets, and the Locavore movement (eating foods grown with 100 miles).  Are these little guys going to handle all this paperwork and testing and pay for certification?  How about the Mexican dude selling tacos and burritos from a bicycle?  Will he have to be accountable?  Where would you draw the line?  (Of course they can't.  That's why Big Business loves Big Government.  Big Government stops little guys from getting started.) 

Finally, for those who believe in evolution, mention that 150 years ago, an ear of corn was about an inch and a half long.  Wheat grew at about 25% of its present density and yield.  Ditto for rice.  Some of this was achieved through trial and error, some through traditional hybridization methods, some by accident, and some by guys at Monsanto (and State Ag Colleges) saying "Screw it, I'm just gonna alter the DNA."  Where would you draw the line?  In the messy, random process that resulted in the Big Mac you're currently eating, where do we draw the line? 

Do you say "this is a sesame seed bun".   And it's the official sesame seed bun, starting with 2013.  This is a pickle.  The 2013 variety.  This is the DNA of 2013 lettuce.  Or pick your year.  We could say that the heirloom seeds of 1953 are the non-GMO variety.  Or we could try to define the beef patties that were present in The Garden Of Eden, and declare those to be the non-GMO's. 

But the foods are going to be changing, through human action, or through Natural Selection.  The lawyers will be very, very happy.  Monsanto can afford lots and lots of lawyers. 

At this point the Statist Slave will say "THE USA IS THE ONLY 1ST WORLD NATION THAT DOESN'T HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE."  and agree to disagree. 

Keep fighting, people.  Keep fighting.  Later on this week, I'll write about how to alienate yourself by defending Wal-Mart. 

Joe Biden on Gay Marriage. Maybe. Kinda. Sorta.

Whether it's on Facebook, at a bar, or at a social event, I really, really, really enjoy needling my gay'n'lesbian friends about Barack Obama's opposition to gay marriage. 
He's the highest-ranking gay marriage opponent in the United States.  They support him just the same.  I'll never understand why. 

(Just for the record, I'm not gay.  But some of the guys I dance with are.) 

I caught this on TIVO last night.  On "Meet The Press", David Gregory was repeatedly asking Joe Biden about his position on gay marriage.  All the goofy ol' dude had to do was say "I'm for it" or "I'm against it". 

But then....

Biden told wonderful, heart-warming anecdotes.  He told about kids bringing flowers.  He talked about equality.  He did everything but answer the question.  He let loose such an astounding cliche-burdened fog of Bidenesque flatulence that I kept thinking about getting my clothes out of the dryer, getting something to eat, or helping The Aggie give some dachshunds a flea bath.  I never heard any endorsement of gay marriage.  I intended to post this interview as more proof that this Democrat administration isn't in favor of gay marriage any more than the Republicans are.  The interview ended with me thinking Biden hadn't really changed his position on gay/lesbian marriage.  I swear to God, I was going to post this thing and send a link to every male in Tarrant County who really cares about his window treatments. 

But then, after the usual Talking Heads forum, "Meet The Press" host David Gregory pulled MBC's Chuck Todd aside and said something like "Well, the Vice-President made the news today, didn't he?"  Todd agreed.  "Yes, he came out in favor of gay marriage."  Then they noted that President Obama is still "evolving" on this issue. 

WTF???  Biden came out in favor of gay marriage????

Listen to this vat of Barackaganda leaking out over the airwaves.  Listen to David Gregory repeatedly asking him for a simple yes or no.  Somewhere in there, Joe Biden supposedly comes out in favor of gay marriage.  I promise you, if Biden's handlers/trainers hadn't told Gregory that Biden was going public with his support of gay marriage, Gregory would've been just like me at the end of the interview, wondering where Biden had landed in relation to the fence. 



What courage.  What a man of principle.  I think.  Maybe.  Shit, I can't tell.  I'd rather listen to an NPR pledge drive than listen to this windbag. 

But speaking of courage and principle, here's how a real defender of civil liberties speaks out on the issue. 

Former New Mexico Governor (and the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate) Gary Johnson today assailed Sen. Rick Santorum for the ex-senator’s opposition to gay marriage equality and for Santorum’s past comments equating Gay marriage with polygamy, child molestation and bestiality. Johnson also offered criticism of President Barack Obama, who he said was “playing politics” with gay rights.


“Rick Santorum’s position is unconstitutional. The Constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally and makes no reference to gender in assuring those equal rights,” said Johnson. “By any fair measure, equal access to marriage for all Americans is a right — guaranteed by the Constitution. Senator Santorum’s claim that legally recognizing gay marriage would be no different than legalizing polygamy, child molestation or bestiality is repugnant and insulting to millions of gay Americans,” said the former New Mexico Governor.

Johnson had equally harsh criticism for President Barack Obama. “The New York Times reports that while President Obama gives lip service to gay equality, the President will not support gay marriage before the election because of the opposition of African Americans, as reflected in his polling, and the need to assure maximum support from African American voters in November,” said Johnson. “Instead the President sends out surrogates to imply that he will support gay marriage in a second term.

“President Obama did the same kind of dance around the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’. He promised to repeal it in his campaign, then dragged his feet on repealing it as President, even sending the Justice Department’s lawyers into court to defend it. Then when ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was finally repealed by Congress, he claimed victory and a promise fulfilled.

“As for Rick Santorum, at least he is consistent. He not only opposed the repeal of DADT, he has promised to return our military to the Dark Ages and reinstate it, and claims that repealing such a discriminatory policy has somehow been ‘detrimental’ to gays.

“I, for one, am tired of seeing candidates for president – including the President himself, play political games with people’s lives and happiness. Perhaps it’s time for a president who leads based upon principle instead of polls,” he said.

Hit the link above to read the whole thing.  That is how you support gay marriage. 

As for Obama, he's still "evolving".  Go here for a list of Tweets from the White House staff, watching Biden on TV and back-pedaling like circus monkeys. 

Miss USA: Should Evolution Be Taught In Schools?

Humanity is fortunate that the answers to the question "evolve" as the video progresses.

Miss California (at the 2:00 mark, the self-professed science geek) won the pageant, BTW.

The Monthly Mohler - Albert Mohler takes on The BioLogos Forum

Since last year's takedown of Dr. Albert Mohler got about a jillion hits, I've decided to start writing something called The Monthly Mohler.  The Monthly Mohler will be an opportunity to look at the president of Southern Seminary's views on church and state, his beliefs that those who disagree with him are going to burn in hell for all eternity, and finally, his God'n'Amurrica blurbs on Fox.
 
Why bother with something like this? 

Because I believe that he's harmful.  He doesn't make the world a better place.  He reinforces tribalism.  He has a childish loyalty to some theological beliefs that he believes are science, but that only belong to mythology.  But millions of people listen to what he says because, after all, he's Dr. Albert Mohler of Southern Seminary. 
A few weeks ago, Dr. Mohler gave us his views on The BioLogos Forum, a website self-described as follows: 

The BioLogos Foundation is a group of Christians, many of whom are professional scientists, biblical scholars, philosophers, theologians, pastors, and educators, who are concerned about the long history of disharmony between the findings of science and large sectors of the Christian faith. We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation. Founded by Dr. Francis Collins, BioLogos addresses the escalating culture war between science and faith, promoting dialog and exploring the harmony between the two. We are committed to helping the church – and students, in particular – develop worldviews that embrace both of these complex belief structures, and that allow science and faith to co-exist peacefully.

In other words, the participants in the BioLogos forum know that we evolved.  We evolved, and it took a long, long time. 

Here's Dr. Mohler's take on this group:

Public debate is unpredictable by nature, but I have to admit that the approach undertaken by the folks at BioLogos continues to amaze me. The BioLogos movement is a straight-forward attempt to persuade evangelical Christians to embrace some form of evolutionary theory. Organized by a group that includes Dr. Francis Collins, now the Director of the National Institutes of Health, the movement seeks to marginalize objections to evolution among conservative Christians. It offers a very sophisticated website and an energetic communications strategy.

The BioLogos approach to the issue is now clear. They want to discredit evangelical objections to evolution and to convince the evangelical public that an acceptance of evolution is a means of furthering the gospel. They have leveled their guns at the Intelligent Design movement, at young earth creationism, and against virtually all resistance to the embrace of evolution. They claim that the embrace of evolution is necessary if evangelicalism is not to be intellectually marginalized in the larger culture. They have warned that a refusal to embrace evolution will doom evangelicalism to the status of an intellectual cult.

So far, so good.  Because the embrace of evolution really is necessary if evangelicalism is not to be intellectually marginalized in the larger culture, and doomed to the status of an (anti-intellectual) cult. 
Why? 
Because we evolved, and Christianity cannot continue to deny it. 
I'm about 2/3rds of the way through with Richard Dawkins' "Greatest Show On Earth - The Evidence For Evolution".  Lord have mercy, what a brilliant book.  Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.

Dawkins starts with some of the same arguments that Darwin used, arguments about processes that can't be denied.  In Darwin's day, British farmers routinely modified inedible plants to form various delicious cabbages and cauliflowers.  Dogs were selectively bred for fox-hunting, retrieving, or as guard animals.  Those cabbages and puppies with valuable characteristics were allowed to reproduce.  Plants and pups with undesirable characteristics were set aside as failed experiments. 
Within a half-dozen generations, new varities were spreading all over England. 

My father used to point out the varieties of soybeans produced in the agriculture department at Mississippi State University.  Some needed less water than others.  Some had a greater yield, but needed more fertilizer.  Others had a great yield but could be knocked to the ground by a 15 MPH breeze. 
I still remember many of the names the MSU scientists gave the varieties: Davis, Hood, Lee, Pickett, and Bragg.  (Yeah, they always named them after Confederate generals.)

So if characteristics of a species can be intentionally changed in a short period of time, what happens when Mother Nature is left alone to determine what characteristics are most valuable? 
The fossil record shows us. 
The plants, animals and fish at the lower levels are radically different from the fossils found near the surface.

But go far enough back up the time/species line with any two organisms, and you'll eventually find a common ancestor.  At an early point in the timeline, the two varieties could reproduce with each other.  Later on, you'll only get a sterile offspring - i.e., something like the offspring of a horse and a donkey, a mule.  Give nature a few million more years, and try to mate a cabbage with a kitten.  You'll get nothing at all.
 
The fact that people, puppies, purple cabbages, and pancreatic cancers evolve - it is at the heart of almost all medical research.  The flu shot you got this year will be useless next year.  The virus will have evolved by then. 
Face it.  Embrace it.  Evolution explains the world.  To learn more, read the Dawkins book. 
Back to Dr. Mohler....

Furthermore, they have been breathtakingly honest about the theological implications of their arguments. Writers for BioLogos have repeatedly made the case that we must relinquish the inerrancy of the Bible and accept that the biblical writers worked from a defective understanding of the world and its origins. They have asserted, for example, that the Apostle Paul was simply wrong in assuming that Adam was an historical person from whom all humans are descended. They have been bold and honest in rejecting the biblical account of the Fall as historical. They have warned that an affirmation of biblical inerrancy has led evangelicalism into an “intellectual cul-de-sac.” A complete inventory of the doctrinal concessions they will demand is not yet in sight, but as I have affirmed before, they deserve credit for the honesty of their proposals.

So far, Dr. Mohler is batting 1.000
The BioLogos folks do indeed affirm that Paul was mistaken because Adam was not an historical person. 
Adam is a metaphor.
Not only is Adam a metaphor, but he's two different metaphors when you compare Genesis chapters one and two. 
The first two chapters of Genesis, the ones that all the fuss is about, are contradictory.  They are about two radically different creation accounts.  They can't both be "inerrant".  They use different names for God.  There is a different order of creation.  The authors, and there were two different authors, had different goals in mind when telling their stories. 
They are beautiful stories.  They were the best we could do at the time.  But they are stories, all the same.  Go to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (in the early 1980's) and you won't be taught this, but you will be allowed to learn it.  (Long, long story, involving denominational politics.)

Go here for the best explanation I'll ever write about the problems in the biblical stories of creation.

Not only does biblical inerrancy lead to "an intellectual cul-de-sac", it is a cul-de-sac with a cliff at the end.  You find yourself defending talking serpents and donkeys, exploring the reasons for making an axe-head float, and wondering why the snakes didn't eat the mice on the ark. 
Ok, back to Dr. Mohler:

They are also clear about their motive. In their view, the acceptance of evolution is necessary for evangelism. They are motivated, they insist, by a concern that a rejection of evolution puts Christians in a position of intellectual embarrassment. The rejection of evolution places Christians outside the intellectual pale, they assert, leading to the discrediting of the gospel. They believe that intellectuals, especially scientists, will not respect an evangelistic witness to the gospel from one who is intellectually discredited by rejecting evolution. They are embarrassed by the fact that a majority of evangelicals reject evolution, and they honestly believe that some people will not come to know Christ because they are so offended by our unwillingness to accept evolution. They have repeatedly asserted that the credibility and integrity of our Christian witness is at stake.

Why is the rejection of evolution an embarrassment to some Christians? 
Because it is embarrassing to be in a biology class with someone who is raising hell because a teacher is contradicting the folk tales he learned in his Mama's lap.  You feel bad for them.  You don't want to be there.  You don't want to watch the pain.  That's one of the definition of embarrassment.  And yes, changing your mind on any major issue causes pain. 

The writers for BioLogos have been unsparing in their criticism of evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible or are proponents of either Intelligent Design or creationism. They initiated a public debate by presenting their arguments in the public square. But now, it appears, they really do not want a public debate at all. They want a one-way conversation.

Dr. Mohler then outlines the details of a tiresome Preacher Fight between himself and someone at BioLogos.  You can go back to his original post if you have the time for the whole thing.  It's a tiresome exposition about who said what and who all really responded in what way....all in relation to Saint Peter and Cornelius in the 10th Chapter Of Acts. 

The chief difficulty, the main reason that these guys can't get anywhere with their discussion?  Neither side can come out and say "Serpents can't talk.  No boat could hold every species of animal.  Trumpet noise couldn't knock down the walls of Jericho.  These are stories.  Parables.  Valuable campfire legends from the infancy of our race.  Let's try something....Dr. Mohler, I'm going to build a pile of wood as big as the Texas A&M bonfire.  I'm going to dig a moat around it.  I'm going to drench the whole thing with water.  Then, Dr. Mohler, I want you to pray for God to ignite the woodpile, the way he did for Elijah.  After you've failed at that, then we'll talk."

If the BioLogos guys were to be that frank and honest, donations would drop off considerably. 

A brief digression:  I briefly attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, the sister institution to Doctor Mohler's Southeastern Seminary. 
There but for the grace of God go I. 
Here's more from Doctor Mohler, still bristling from accusations that he called the BioLogos people "not christian":

I can read their words, however. Their theological arguments are published in the public arena. They are not shy about making their proposals, and they call for a radical reformulation of evangelical doctrine. Their assaults upon biblical inerrancy have not been made in private conversations, but in public discourse. Their argument that the Apostle Paul was wrong to believe in an historical Adam and an historical Fall was made in public, as was their denial of common descent through Adam.

Now we're getting somewhere.  This is why Christian fundamentalists attack biologists so fiercely over evolution, while giving linguists a free pass when they offer up alternatives to the Tower Of Babel story.  You see, if there was no Adam and no Eve, then there was no Original Sin.  We are not infected from birth with a desire to murder, steal, covet, and bear false witness.  God didn't set up a perfect environment that we silly humans made a mess of. 
We don't have any collective guilt. 
Paul was off the mark about why Jesus had to die. 
Once you accept that the flu virus can evolve from year to year, fundamentalist theology is a mess. 

They will have to take responsibility for these arguments. They should expect no less than a spirited debate over their proposals, and it is nothing short of bewildering that they now ask, in effect, for a pass from all theological scrutiny. They accuse conservative evangelicals of driving evangelicalism into an “intellectual cul-de-sac” and into the status of an intellectual “cult,” and then they have the audacity to complain of the “tone” of those who argue that their proposals amount to a theological disaster.

Yep.  A theological disaster.  That's what it would be.  As if that's a bad thing. 
You know, if I steal your car, get caught, and then make it up to you by going into my back yard and beating the crap out of my dachshunds, I don't think you'll be satisfied.  I think you'd prefer to get your car back. 
That's what the Original Sin story led to.  Substitutionary Atonement.  Adam and Eve screwed up, so I let God take his frustrations out on Jesus. 
Theology like that?  It needs a disaster every few millenia. 

Virtually every form of theological liberalism arises from an attempt to rescue Christian theology from what is perceived to be an intellectual embarrassment — whether the virgin conception of Christ, the historicity of the miracles recorded in the Bible, or, in our immediate context, the inerrancy of Scripture and the Bible’s account of creation.

No, no, no.  It arises from people looking at the texts, and asking themselves "Is this possible?"  "Could this have happened?"  "Why is this account of dead people rising from their graves in Jerusalem only mentioned in Matthew?" 
(To learn more about groups who try to sort out the truth from the legends, check out the fine work of the scholars at The Jesus Seminar.) 

Dr. Sprinkle kindly invites me “to come and see what I see in the hearts and lives of people in the BioLogos community.” I am willing and eager to enter into any conversation that serves the cause of the gospel. But a conversation that serves the cause of the gospel cannot avoid talking about what the gospel is — and that requires theology.
BioLogos is a movement that asserts theological arguments in the public square in order to convince evangelical Christians to accept their proposals. They now have the audacity to ask for a pass from theological responsibility. That is the one thing they may not have.

I believe that the need for some theological responsibility now rests in Dr. Mohler's camp.  The BioLogos people present compelling evidence for evolution, and yet want to continue calling themselves Christians.   Mohler hasn't done anything here except beg the question.  His argument appears to be that human evolution didn't take place because it would be a contradiction of one of the many branches of Christian belief that have slowly (ahem) evolved for the last two thousand years.   

Al Mohler's is a theology that needs to evolve, to grow up. 

When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. - First Corinthians 13:11

My trip to the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas

This past Saturday I went to the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas. 
Admission is two dollars, and if I ever find myself in that part of Texas again, I'll gladly pay three. 

The Creation Evidence Museum is the work of Dr.(sic) Carl Baugh.  Go here to read about Baugh's academic credentials. 
Now that I've done some reading on the guy, this place might replace Lee Harvey Oswald's grave as my favorite destination to take out of town guests. 
Cedric Katesby, get ready.  If you ever make it to the U.S., we're going. 

The place is a shapeless mass of....things and ideas and stuff that "isn't even wrong" and generic rocks and hyperbaric chambers and glass cases of unrelated fossils and evangelical kitsch. 

You begin your museum experience with a 30-minute video of Dr. Baugh explaining how the fossil record proves the 6-day creation account found in Genesis.  I can't find the exact video on YouTube, but this one works just as well....
Don't bother watching or listening.  While you're reading, just hit play and let the pseudo-scientific gobbledygook bathe you in the hyperbaric chamber of Dr. Baugh's mind.  More on the hyperbaric chambers in a moment. 



Baugh's timeline is illustrated by a series of paintings, each one illustrating the condition of our planet on that day of creation.  A lot of his focus is on a "canopy" that was once over the earth (about 10 miles up), and this canopy of hydrogen and oxygen (known in academic circles as "water") remained in place until Noah's flood.  All land was in one mass until the flood, and it was only then that North America split off from Europe, South America broke away from Africa, and a sprinkling of fossils found their way onto mountaintops.  Or something. 

Here's some of the general flavor of what Baugh claims was going on during one of the creation days.  I don't have the patience to figure out which one....

The harmonic creation was established to endure forever. A crystalline firmament suspended above the planet filtered out short-wave radiation, and with its physical structure in place universal radio signals serenaded the earth with morning melodies. Planets in the Solar System were distributed at harmonic intervals on a large scale, consistent with the energy fields living seeds produce on a small scale.

I could write for days about that last sentence.  Planets in the Solar System were distributed at harmonic intervals on a large scale, consistent with the energy fields living seeds produce on a small scale.  What does that mean?  Is it possible for it to mean anything?  The planets were distributed at harmonic intervals?  And these intervals are "consistent" with the energy fields that seeds produce?  The (musical) intervals are consistent with the energy produced by seeds?  Ahhh....but it is on a smaller scale.  The seeds, as compared to the planets.   

Baugh continues:

The radiant sun transformed and ruled the day, and its glowing energy extending into the firmament illuminated the night. The reflecting moon added a romantic invitation to the sky. The stars produced measurable references by which time could be told; their colors and formations were as varied and imaginative as eternal reflection could appreciate.

Yeah. 

Ok, on to the hyperbaric chambers.  You'll never know it by going through the museum, but there are two hyperbaric chambers in the place.  Unless you're in the know, you'd think they were some leftover East Texas oilfield equipment, painted white and outfitted with some Disney-esque control panels and viewing windows.  Here's an explanation from a previous visitor, a guy who didn't have nearly as much fun at the museum as I did:

The Creation Evidence Museum also includes a large magenta-windowed "hyperbaric biosphere" in which Baugh claims to have recreated "earth's original pre-flood environment" (Figure 3). According to Baugh, the biosphere — which is connected to an oscilloscope — increases organisms' life-spans by 300%; it also detoxifies copperheads' venom. Near the biosphere is an aquarium in which Baugh grows "vegetarian piranhas." Baugh believes his discoveries support the vast life-spans of biblical patriarchs such as Adam (who allegedly lived to be 930), and the harmonious environment (that is, no carnivores or death) before Eve introduced sin into the world. Baugh hopes to grow dinosaurs in the biosphere. On the museum's walls, visitors can view paintings in which pre-flood children play with a baby Apatosaurus in the nearby Paluxy River. Visitors can purchase these replicas, as well as books, posters, and other materials such as certificates honoring recipients as "visionaries" for "supporting truth in education."

Get it now?  The hyperbaric chambers recreate life the way it was before the flood, before the "canopy" of hydrogen and oxygen came flooding down on Noah. 
Another item of interest is this:

See the human footprint covered by the dinosaur footprint?  That proves that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, right?  And that we really could have an earth that's 6,500 years old.  Readers wanting to scoff at this discovery can go here, and scoff up a storm. 
All I'm going to say is that compared to all the other dino tracks in Glen Rose, this thing is a little too perfect. 

There were other exhibits that proved Creationism by using the pictograms found in Mandarin Chinese.  The display only offered a hint of the theory.  You have to buy a DVD to get the full story. 

There was something going on in one display of meteor fragments, comparing the meteors to the 7 seals and trumpets in the Book Of Revelation.  I never did figure that one out. 

They have a massive painting of Noah loading all the critters onto the ark.  Note the soon-to-be-drowned scoffers in the bottom left corner.  Velociraptors are strangely absent. 

You can purchase paperback copies of Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study in the museum gift shop. 

And they have Brontosaurus neckties with this verse from Job 40:15 - "Now look at Behemoth which I made along with you - he eats grass like an ox". 

Get it?  Get it?  Along with you?  Like, at the same time?  And your footprints are all mixed up with each other? 

I'm gonna start going to NFL games and holding up that verse in the end zone. 

Here's an entry for The Apostrophe Abuse Blog.  In a freakin' museum, ferchrissakes. 



But the main thing you'll notice is the big statue.  You hesitate to ask who it represents, but in the back of your mind, you know.
As you go through the museum, the statue's unblinking eyes look down on you and your group, lovingly, compassionately, but also giving the impression that he's not going to tolerate any dissent.  In his right hand he holds the names from The Lambs Book Of Life....  Or perhaps they're the names of The Just And The Unjust?  The Tibetan Book Of The Dead? 

We'll never know what he is holding; his Sphinx-like gaze betrays nothing. 

You ask why he's there, why Dr. Carl Baugh's Creation Evidence Museum has him up there, larger than life, looking down and casting judgement on believer and skeptic alike. 

I have no freakin' clue. 

But yeah, overlooking the entire Creation Evidence Museum is a massive statue of Dallas Cowboys coach Tom Landry. 

I loved every inch of this place.  Loved it, loved it, loved it. 
Some of the pics came from Flikr. 

Spontaneous Nostril Combustion

People in a hurry can safely skip to the 2:30 mark.

To the True Believer, no proof is necessary. To the Skeptic, no proof is possible

British geneticist J.B.S. Haldane was supposedly asked what it would take to discredit the theory of evolution.
"Rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian" was his response.  The idea being that rabbits should be a late arrival on the world stage, and if a rabbit fossil were found in the wrong place, it would cause some problems. 

I heard or read that story quite a while back, and intended to use it for the beginning of this post, but in a different way.  While reading up on Mr. Haldane, the Cambrian layer of fossils, and rabbits, I found this tidbit:

The late J. B. S. Haldane famously said that all it would take to falsify evolution is a single Cambrian rabbit fossil, and that is exactly what has been uncovered by paleontologist Dr Wilfred Splenebyrst of the London School of Ergonomics.

“I checked and double-checked the dating, and then checked it again with three independent labs,” said Dr Splenebyrst. “There really is no doubt. This is a 520-million year old rabbit fossil.”

The new fossil, Paleohyrax reprobae, differs from modern rabbits in a number of subtle anatomical ways, lending weight to it being truly a new species from the Cambrian era. “This is definitely not a modern rabbit,” said Dr Splenebyrst. “It was about half the size and may even have been carnivorous. It appears to have been foraging for trilobites in the ancient tidal pools.”

I have no idea what a Cambrian era bunny means.  I kinda like the idea of a Monty Python/Holy Grail carnivrorous killer rabbit.  I like the idea that rabbits have been going at it for a long, long time.  I like the idea that if there is a God, she has a sense of humor, as shown by placing one of these critters this deep into the fossilized muck.
I know that this rabbit doesn't disturb my belief that we have evolved (and I hope we continue to).  As far as the Evolution vs. Creationism debate goes, if you acknowledge that there's a Cambrian era, you've wandered away from the Biblical idea of a 6,000 year old earth. 

Ok, back to my original point.....Someone asked Haldane what it would take to disprove evolution.  He told them. 
The primary theme of this website is Liberty vs. Statism.  What would it take for me to agree that a Statist mode of government is superior to a more Libertarian form? 

Well, look at Venezuela.  They're running out of water.  They're a major energy exporter, but they can't keep the lights turned on.  Heck, they're even running out of coffee.  But if Hugo Chavez, the socialist nutcase running the show, were to suddenly produce a prosperous nation in spite of nationalizing everything he touches, I would have to re-evaluate my worldview. 

If, in 20 years, ObamaCare™ turns out to have lowered medical costs (not prices, but costs) I would have to repent of just about every political and economic belief I've ever held. 

I've had a good time over the last two years with the Global Warmists.  If it doesn't snow and freeze, that's proof of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming - i.e., we control the weather).  If it snows and freezes, that's also proof of Global Warming.  I think the burden of proof is on those guys.  Is there any weather pattern that would be acceptable proof that AGW is a fantasy?  I don't think so. 

I'm probably misquoting Michael Shermer, but someplace in his "Why People Believe Weird Things" he makes the following statement:

"To the True Believer, no proof is necessary.  To the Skeptic, no proof is possible."

The Evolution Of God, by Robert Wright

For the next few days, Andrew Sullivan has turned his site, the Daily Dish. over to Robert Wright, author of "The Evolution Of God".

I'm about halfway through the book, and it's pure, undiluted greatness.

Brilliant.

Since I'm not through with the book, I'm not going to attempt a summary. Here's a good one, though, from a Disciples Of Christ minister in Troy, Michigan.

The idea that God has evolved may be off-putting to some and welcomed by others. How one responds to this idea may depend both on what is meant by the phrase and where one stands in regards to the idea of God. A believer may take this idea differently than will an unbeliever. Philip Clayton, in his book Adventures in the Spirit (Fortress, 2008) encourages believers in God to welcome dialog with science and philosophy, and not to fear any challenging implications to faith. It is with that sense of openness that I came to Robert Wright’s fascinating study of the evolution of the idea of God, from its origins in hunter/gather societies to the development of the great religions – especially the three Abrahamic religions. Wright admits that he approached this study with an agnostic sensibility. Indeed, the focus here is not on whether God exists, but how humans have envisioned and approached the idea of God. His is a materialist description, assuming that ideas of faith have evolved because they fulfill a role in society. Indeed, when he speaks of specific religious expressions he takes a rather minimalist view – that is Jesus said and did little of what has been ascribed to him, and the stories of early Judaism, from Abraham to Moses, likely did not happen.

Wright will be posting on the Daily Dish for the rest of this week. Go there.

The Best Argument Against Creationism

.

Serpents can't talk.

.

Not Welcome In Kansas Any More

Darwin and Lincoln have their 200th birthday coming up on Thursday.

From Unfairlybalanced.com

How to teach Creationism

Some guys named Jimmy Hobbs and Joel Fanti are enjoying their 15 minutes of fame after a Wilmington, North Carolina area school board meeting:

The Brunswick County school board is looking for a way for creationism to be taught in the classroom side by side with evolution.

by Ana Ribeiro

"It's really a disgrace for the state school board to impose evolution on our students without teaching creationism," county school board member Jimmy Hobbs said at Tuesday's meeting. "The law says we can't have Bibles in schools, but we can have evolution, of the atheists."

This makes me so insane on so many levels. Evolution is no more atheistic than linguistics and optics are atheistic. It's like saying that gravity is libertarian, or that death is illiterate.

Evolution is an explanation of how species have changed and developed through a process that took millions of years. Unless God chooses to reveal himself/herself, it's the only explanation out there.


I've been in and out of churches that had varying degrees of loyalty to the Biblical stories most of my life. I've taught the stories to kids - in some of the least dogmatic ways possible - as narratives about what life might mean.
But they aren't science !
You can go to seminaries (as I did briefly) and learn that they didn't happen ! They are metaphorical, not factual.
Here's more Ana Robeiro:

When asked by a reporter, his fellow board members all said they were in favor of creationism being taught in the classroom.

Oh, for the love of God. All of them said that? The whole school board?

The topic came up after county resident Joel Fanti told the board he thought it was unfair for evolution to be taught as fact, saying it should be taught as a theory because there's no tangible proof it's true.
"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"

Please, please, please let that be a typo. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?" Joel, you don't see anything evolving because it IS so slow.

The board allowed Fanti to speak longer than he was allowed, and at the end of his speech he volunteered to teach creationism and received applause from the audience. When he walked away, school board Chairwoman Shirley Babson took the podium and said another state had tried to teach evolution and creationism together and failed, and that the school system must teach by the law.

If Mr. Fanti or Ms. Babson need help teaching creationism, let me propose the following lesson plan:

Give the class a copy of Genesis, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2, verses 1-3, along with the following outline:

Genesis 1:1-5 God said "Let there be light"
Genesis 1:6-8 God then created the Firmament, or "layers of sky" (as it was then understood) Genesis 1:9-13 Next, God made land, water, trees and plants
Genesis 1:14-19 God then made the sun, moon, and stars (disregard that he created "light" in verse one)
Genesis 1: 20-23 Fish and birds are created
Genesis 1:24-31 God made cattle, creeping things, and finally, man.

Discuss the writing style. The students will probably agree that the author of Genesis chapter one is giving a dry, somewhat bland account of God's actions at the beginning of time.

Discuss the lack of original manuscripts for the book of Genesis.

Discuss the difficulty of translating unpunctuated Hebrew.

Discuss the order in which God created life on earth: light, sky, land, water, plants, sun, moon, and stars, fish, birds, cattle and other wildlife, and man. Write this sequence on the blackboard or dry erase board as a timeline.

Ask a volunteer to read the first three verses of Genesis 2:1-3 to the class.

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Ask the students if they understand this to be the creationist explanation for the origins of all life and all species. Ask if they know the meaning of the word "infallible". Ask if "infallibility" could apply to this narrative. Discuss at great length. Be gentle.

Distribute the text of Genesis 2:4-9.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-
5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,
6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground,
7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters.
11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold.
12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.)
13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.
14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Ask the class if Genesis chapter 2 seems to offer a contradictory account from chapter 1.

Discuss the writing style. Ask which story uses more emotion.

Ask why chapter one, in this translation, consistently uses the word "God", and chapter two always uses the phrase "the LORD God".

Explain that the original Hebrew word for God used in chapter one is "Elohim", while chapter two uses the word "Yahweh". Ask if the writers were talking about the same Deity. Ask one of the music geeks in the class to give the current definition of the word "mashup".

Mention the differences in writing style between, say, Shakespeare and Snoop Dogg. Ask what makes their writing distinctive and recognizable. Then ask the class if they think the first Genesis story and the second Genesis story were written by the same person. Be gentle.

Return to your blackboard timeline from Genesis chapter 1. Create a second timeline based on the account in Genesis chapter 2. Note the contradictions. Once again, be gentle.

Homework assignment: Ask the students to write a 250 word essay about which timeline is more convincing. Give 5 extra points for the correct use of the word "infallible" in each essay.

When grading, be very gentle. You are planting a seed. It will grow.

End of lesson plan.

Mr. Hobbs and Mr. Fanti, are you sure that you want North Carolina's biology professors to teach creationism? Or do you think that the Bible should be taught in churches, and science should be taught in schools?

Darwin's Dangerous Idea - too much for Texas

Laurie Barker James has written an article for Fort Worth Weekly entitled "Devolution In Education".
She outlines the attempts made by various religious and political groups to have Creationism and Intelligent Design taught in the Texas Public School System. Here's an excerpt:

The process of chipping away at the theory of evolution in Texas science curriculum actually began with Texas Proclamation 95 in the mid-1990s. Signed by then-Gov. George Bush, the proclamation requires basic biology textbooks to “formulate, discuss, critique, and review hypotheses, theories, laws, and principles, and their strengths and weaknesses.”
Opponents of the theory of evolution, who are variously called creationists, Young Earth believers, or anti-Neo-Darwinists, have laid the groundwork both nationally and in Texas over the past decade to turn the relatively simple task of curriculum development into a fight over the basic theory of how humans came to be. Whatever you call them, this group of mostly fundamentalist Christians believes in biblical inerrancy. In recent years, many of them have lined up behind the concept of “intelligent design,” which attempts to use scientific terminology to promote the idea that, as it says in Genesis, the world was created in six days. If the Bible is correct, the proponents say, the Earth is very young — less than 7,000 years old.

This, of course, is nuts.
Do a little research on the speed of light. Then figure out how far we are from some of the most remote stars. Figure out how long it has taken the light from those stars to reach our telescopes. You'll get a number that's greater than 7,000.
I remember watching some guys put in a new irrigation well on our farm in Mississippi. The routine they used was to drill down, then bring the auger back up, then drill a little deeper, and bring the auger back up. On the return trip from one of the deepest plunges, the auger came back with a chunk of a tree in it. Even within the flood plain of the Mississippi River, trees couldn't be buried under that much silt in just 7,000 years.
Look at the current height of The Rocky Mountains. Look at how much they are growing each year. (Not much, but they grow). Divide the height by the growth rate. Big number.
The Bible, in this case, isn't a document that should be seen as "right" or "wrong". The word "Truth" instead of the word "Fact" is more appropriate. Here's some more Laurie James:

The argument at the root of the issue is biblical inerrancy, a doctrine as old as the Christian church itself. Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei, early scientists and Christians, challenged the Catholic Church’s doctrine on the Earth as the center of the universe.
We can now demonstrate that the Earth moves around the sun, not vice versa. Back before the Protestant Reformation, however, even scientific evidence drew a penalty when it came into conflict with accepted interpretation of what the Judeo-Christian Bible (which had been translated from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek and then Latin at that point) said. Perhaps it’s fittingly ironic that Charles Darwin, who proposed the theory of evolution in the mid-1800s, was first a ministry student before a voyage aboard the Beagle changed the course of his future. Now people of diverse faiths — clergy as well as laypeople — accept the theory of evolution and want to see it taught in schools.

Well, yeah, they do. But they're not very vocal about it.
Part of our problem is the lack of a hierarchy in many of our Protestant denominations. (You may have noticed that the Catholics are strangely silent on the evolution issue. They learned some things from the Galileo incident. If a priest were to start railing against Darwin, I think everyone higher up the food chain would tell him to shut up.) Anyone in the U.S.A. who cares to do so can start a church, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's a very libertarian thing. But they can also claim to speak for God, and in defense of God. There's no one around to provide any historical context.
Why does God need defending? Who is attacking God?
The Godless Evolutionists, and they make a perfect enemy for fund-raising appeals.
God used to get credit for putting us at the center of creation, aiming the lightning, causing the earthquakes, and making us out of mud. Science has been explaining more and more of these phenomena.
But the Creationists don't understand the difference between Religion and Science, between Truth and Fact.
Elsewhere in the article, an acquaintance of mine tries to explain things:

Ralph Mecklenburger, the rabbi at Fort Worth’s Beth-El Congregation, has been paying attention to the debate about Texas’ science curriculum. As an expert in the Torah, or Old Testament, upon which the proponents of intelligent design base their theories, the rabbi is concerned with misinterpretation.
“Has evolution been demonstrated experimentally? Yes, many times,” he wrote in an e-mail. “Intelligent design, on the other hand, may be true, but until someone comes up with a way to test it, it will not be science.”
Many scientists echo Mecklenburger’s statement that, despite challenges, the theory of evolution has held up for more than a century. Those scientists and many teachers believe that intelligent design proponents ignore the proofs and use outdated information to hammer away at accepted science. Historically, Jews found the Bible to be “full of memorable ways to teach values, but we know it is not science,” Mecklenburger said. “We deny that science and religion conflict, but that is because we recognize that the Bible is about religion, not about science.”

Well said. (Rabbi Mecklenburger once came to Broadway Baptist Church and put together a combination Seder/Communion service. It was the first time in my life that I understood the context for what Jesus was trying to say. But I digress....)

Now that a Creationist has been nominated for the Vice Presidency, I'm betting that Evolution vs. Creationism will be an increasingly hot topic as we approach election day. In the meantime, enjoy this logo from an upcoming event at Texas CHRISTIAN University, 2008's TCU Family Weekend.....


I think it's now safe to say that Darwin's Dangerous Idea has gone mainstream everywhere but in the Texas Public School system.

Teaching truth as fact

"In the High and Far-Off Times the Elephant, O Best Beloved, had no trunk. He had only a blackish, bulgy nose, as big as a boot, that he could wriggle about from side to side; but he couldn't pick up things with it. But there was one Elephant—a new Elephant — an Elephant's Child — who was full of 'satiable curiosity, and that means he asked ever so many questions…"
That's the first sentence of "The Elephant's Child" by Rudyard Kipling. It's one of a series called "Just So Stories" that he wrote for one of his daughters. The story is about a baby elephant (full of 'satiable curiosity) who up until that time had only "a blackish, bulgy nose, as big as a boot" and who has his nose stretched by a deceitful crocodile.

And that, dear children, is why elephants have long noses. You can look it up.

Kipling wrote about a dozen of these stories, including:

*How the Whale got his Throat - Explains how the whale was once a fearsome predator who ate humans, but was changed by one of his victims.
*How the Camel got his Hump - Explains how the idle camel was punished.
*How the Rhinoceros got his Skin - Explains why Rhinos have folds in their skin and bad tempers.
*How the Leopard got his Spots - You can guess.....
*The Sing-Song of Old Man Kangaroo - The story of how the kangaroo turned from a grey, wooly animal with short, stubby legs, to the athletic animal we know today.
*The Beginning of the Armadillos - The story of how the hedgehog and the turtle transformed into the first....armadillos.

None of these stories are factual. None of them happened. None should be given equal time in a science textbook.

Some of them, however, contain truth. Not TRUTH, but truth. For instance, the truth in "The Elephant's Child" is that when a gullible person runs into a deceitful person, bad things happen to the gullible person. Or perhaps the truth in the story can be found in the cliche "Curiosity killed the cat".

The Jewish/Christian scriptures also give us some stories. They include:

*Why is there a rainbow? - Genesis 9:12-16. This story explains how God put the first rainbow in the sky, as a promise to never again destroy the earth with a flood. The truth in that story is that even if you live in London, it will eventually stop raining.

*Why do people speak different languages? - Genesis 11:4-8. This story explains what happened when people tried to build a tower (The Tower of Babel) that would reach to heaven, and God put an end to the project by giving everyone a different language. The truth in that story is obvious to anyone who has worked in China for a month.

*Why don't snakes have legs? Why do people have to work? Why does it hurt women to have babies? - Genesis 3:14-19. 1) If snakes had legs, they'd be lobbyists. 2) Obama and Biden are asking that same question. 3) We'd be overpopulated otherwise.

You get the idea. These are stories. Some of them are good. Some of them, like the story of Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son Isaac, are barbaric and should be avoided.

Many Christians obsess over the story found in Genesis 1:26-27 . (Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.) They want to be sure this story gets equal time in science classrooms. They try to influence textbook publishers and purchasing committees. It influences how they vote. They give biology teachers hell. They take the issue to court.

So where are the people who should be protesting against "Godless Linguistics"? Do you remember the chart that was usually in the front of your middle school Grammar and English books? The one that showed all the different families of languages? The chart makes no mention of The Tower Of Babel ! ! ! Where's the outrage? Where are the protesters?

Remember your elementary school science teacher shining light through a prism and explaining the color spectrum? Did he take time to explain that this phenomenom didn't exist before the flood in Genesis? Did he explain that the resulting rainbow was a promise from God, and not a mere reorganization of light? From now on, shouldn't the Genesis Flood Story be given equal time when Optics is taught?

Spinal blocks and epidurals during childbirth are immoral, since they are an attempt to lessen the curse found in Genesis 3. Am I missing something here?

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Fundamentalists are very selective in their protests.

There are some great, great stories in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Like Kipling's "Just So Stories" they're an attempt at explaining why the world is the way it is. They were the best we could do at the time. When we read them, we should be looking for the truths, not the facts. That's what the person who created them intended.

"When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things." I Corinthians 13: 11

So put down your picket signs. Stop lobbying textbook publishers. Leave the biology teachers alone. Grow up.

How To Kill A Religion (Hint: Darwin has nothing to do with it.)

Slate.com has an interview with the author of "Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution," - Karl Giberson. Mr. Giberson, a physics professor at Eastern Nazarene College, is also the director of the "Forum on Faith and Science" at Gordon College.

I've looked through the book a few times at Border's or B&N, but haven't purchased it.

The book looks interesting, and the author interview is top notch.

But here's the really really really good part of the Slate.com interview:

Evolution is taught in American high schools and yet many still don't believe in it. How can that be counteracted?
Well, if you could figure that one out, someone would be interviewing you, not you interviewing me. You're absolutely right. That's a challenging problem and it's a problem that the Europeans are just shaking their heads over.

Why is that?
Because Europe doesn't have a robust fundamentalist subculture like America has had since the early parts of the 20th century. American religion has been characterized by an entrepreneurial spirit. In Europe, many of the great religious traditions wasted away because they were supported by government. They didn't need to be popular and have lots of people coming to worship on Sunday to continue. So they atrophied and people lost interest.
In America, without that kind of governmental support, religious leaders had to be entrepreneurial. So a charismatic evangelist can come up with a brand-new approach to faith and touch some chord contemporary with people's needs.

I'm going to buy that book this weekend.
Any author who can slide an anti-government subsidy, pro-Free Market, ultra-libertarian concept like that one into a Slate.com interview deserves my support.

And check out the interview in the link above when you get a chance. Good stuff.

Thank God For Evolution

This is a link to the "Thank God For Evolution" website.
I repeat, there is a "Thank God For Evolution" website.
Enter at your own risk. You can get lost and spend days in there. A guy named Michael Dowd runs the site, writes books, speaks at churches, etc....
I suggest you start here . Skip the stuff about his travels. Hit all the other links. Watch the videos. Git yer perspective adjusted.
I never thought I'd live to see it. But then, I belong to a BAPTIST church where last year the deacon chair was a science professor who teaches evolution (and, incidentally, one of the greatest people I know....)
Perhaps we could bring this Michael Dowd in to speak one Sunday....