On The Right Side

by Tom Sears

  His “lie” was his version of when a conversation took place and what was said differed from two key witnesses, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.

  Remember, this testimony stated the meetings took place in June or July of 2003. Here’s Libby, a very busy person who has multiple meetings every day, being asked to recall what was said in 2007! You or I couldn’t do it either. So he is guilty of the inability to recall the exact content of these conversations.

  Now, when Judith Miller testified, she stated that she “had conversations with other government officials and could not be absolutely, absolutely certain that she first heard about an outed CIA official from I. ‘Scooter’ Libby.” Pretty damning huh?

  Cooper was even more sympathetic. Libby granted him a waiver to testify (I’m

  certain a guilty person would do this) when Cooper asked him.

  In recalling his version of the testimony, he stated in his Times article dated 10/30/05, “Basically, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson’s wife having been involved in sending him to Niger. Libby responded with words to the effect of ‘Yeah, I’ve heard this too’.”

  The rest of the article is pretty revealing, and I would recommend you read it. You really want this man to go to jail before his appeal rights are concluded? He should have used the Hillary selective memory strategy and simply said, “I really can’t recall.” It worked for her.

  So, now the Dems are all flustered about the grave miscarriage of justice that took place when President Bush simply commuted the 30 month jail sentence. I will have to do an article in the future about presidential pardons and commutations since I don’t have room here. Get over it, Dems.

  Scooter Libby will appeal and have the decision reversed. If not he will be pardoned. The Bush administration will win again since once more it has truth on its side.

  Best of all, those leftist liberals will have to continue pounding their heads against the wall, causing even more brain damage than they already have, since they lost again.

  I think Harry Reid should demand another all-night session of the Senate. He certainly got a lot accomplished in the first one.

  Questioning the Theory of Evolution

  I had promised some time ago that I would be writing a column about the theory of evolution. That time has come. Actually, with all the reading I’ve done, it’s probably going to be three or four columns.

  First of all, I want to say that I have the greatest respect for all the fields of science and the individuals who have chosen science as a career.

  What I can’t stand is arrogant science when it comes to talking about evolution. There seems to be an air of elitism or snobbishness against those who hold honest and educated theories that refute the theory of evolution.

  In a book by William Dembski, “Uncommon Dissent, Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing,” he quoted Richard Dawkins, a prominent name in the field of evolution, or Darwinism, saying that those who resist Darwin’s explanation are “ignorant, insane or wicked.”

  Isaac Constantine quotes Dawkins as saying, “If people lived according to rationalism, there would be less waste of time. People would concentrate on really worthwhile things, instead of wasting time on religion, astrology, crystal-gazing, fortune- telling, things like that.”

  Last one by this self-absorbed megalomaniac, from his own book, “The God Delusion.” “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. A naïf blessed with the perspective of innocence has a clearer perception.”

  These are just a few quotes of this maniacal, irrational fool. Do you really think you could have an intelligent discussion with an individual like this?

  Unfortunately, he is just one of many who will resort to any means of insult, character assassination, snideness and lies to discredit those who have the nerve to question the myth of Darwinism’s invincibility.

  Another example of dismissive attitude took place last year when I attended a lecture by a retired biologist who shared the very valid concerns he had about Darwinism and evolution. The lecture was very informative and provoking, the speaker having an excellent ability to communicate difficult issues on a level that was made understandable to the layman.

  During the question and answer period a person stood and very arrogantly and insultingly raved on about how wrong the speaker was about almost everything the speaker said earlier.

  This person was obviously caught up in his self-importance, not having a question at all but rather trying to give all us unenlightened ones the benefit of his genius.

  The speaker took what the man said very graciously, something I don’t think I could have done; and finally the disrupter sat down (or left, I didn’t pay any attention), and we could benefit further from the knowledge and experience of the speaker.

  We Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design can take solace in the fact that more and more prominent scientists and intellectuals are questioning the Darwinism myth of invincibility every day.

  In addition, based on a Gallup poll taken of adults in 2007, 87 percent of those polled believed in either the Creationist view or in Theistic evolution compared to 10 percent who believed in evolution. The poll was segmented by age, education level, income, race, and gender. The highest percentage of believers in evolution were among those with a college education, and even then only 16.7 percent believed in Darwin’s theory of evolution. So even with its monopoly on today’s educational system, science is unable to convey a convincing message to the public.

  Yet, any other alternative or conflicting theory is not even allowed to be taught in schools. The ACLU actually sued a school district when the board simply wanted to include a disclaimer in textbooks that mentioned the “biblical version of creation and other teachings on life’s origin.”

  The disclaimer went on to say “It is the basic right and privilege of each student to form his/her own opinion or maintain beliefs taught by parents on this very important matter. …Students are urged to exercise critical thinking and gather all information possible and closely examine each alternative toward forming an opinion.”

  Robert C. Koons has said in his article, “Why Darwinism Fails to Inspire Confidence”: “We have, therefore, the right and even the duty to compare what Darwinian scientists have actually accomplished with what they still must accomplish if their strong claims of certainty are to be sustained. The evaluation of the arguments of biologists is within the competence of each person, as is the task of assessing the appropriate degree of doubt or certainty that is attached to their conclusions.”

  Based on the above poll, it seems as if people are doing just that.

  Evolution Can’t Explain Origin of Life

  Most people, if not all, would have no problem with the notion of evolution if used properly.

  Evolution simply means change. Changes in existing species as they adapt to changing environmental conditions are observable, testable, and, in many cases reproducible.

  Creationists and others refer to this as microevolution. There is certainly scientific evidence to back up the theory of evolution at this restrained level.

  It is totally inappropriate to use this scientifically provable process and make the gigantic leap to stating that this change, if traced backwards and given enough time to allow the process to change gradually, would prove that life as we know it originated from some single-celled organisms that in turn crawled out of some primordial soup.

  There is absolutely no evidence of evolution that can explain new species’ creation. This is no longer science; it becomes an unprovable, rather illogical, ideology.

  Yet this is what is being taught today in our schools. No other alternativ
e is allowed to be discussed. This is not science; it is scientistic philosophy.

  I’m not even sure if you are allowed to question some of the many holes present in the theory. Thankfully, some very qualified scientists and intellectuals are beginning to question the weaknesses present, and they are becoming more and more in number every day.

  If you have been presented with the theory of evolution or Darwinism and were expected to believe it simply because someone told you to believe it, this is certainly not education. It is, in fact, indoctrination.

  In a creation evolution article I read recently, it quoted from a biology textbook used in high school biology classes. “Life cannot arise by spontaneous generation from inantimate material today, so far as we know, but conditions were very different when the earth was only a few billion years old.” (Campbell, Nell; Biology, 1987, page 504). Isn’t it great to be able to use time as an excuse to explain anything and everything as long as God is not allowed to enter the equation.

  Let’s look at the complexity involved. The entire chain of life is supposed to go like this. First the soup, then amino acids, then protein, then the cell, then the fish, the amphibian, the reptile, the mammal to man. Naturalism, mutation and blind chance is supposed to explain how we evolved.

  In the 1950’s two scientists put together what they believed to be the major ingredients those billions of years ago (in a lab using test tubes which I don’t think existed back then).

  This mix supposedly consisted of methane, hydrogen, water, and ammonia; and they then ran a current of electricity through this mixture and created a few amino acids (again in a controlled laboratory environment).

  It takes a string of amino acids about 400 in length (and remember there are some 20 different types of amino acids needed) to make up an average protein cell.

  These acids must also be in a very specific order or else all you have is a worthless mess of chemicals.

  The probability that simple chance will form just one functional protein cell is 20 to the 400th power. That’s a 1 followed by 520 zeros! The article points out that it would be the equivalent of winning the lottery every week for 11 years. Oops, I forgot to mention that humans have trillions upon trillions of proteins in them, all functioning together. The article points out that DNA and RNA are also required for life. To date, no one has been able to produce chains of RNA or DNA and can’t produce even one cell!

  There is certainly a long way to go to believability in Darwin’s theory. It sure seems just as rational to believe in creationism with God as the Designer as the above. I don’t care how many more billions of years you need to make evolutionary theory feasible.

  It seems that science has this little black box of explanations, and anything that doesn’t fit with conventional reasoning isn’t allowed to be placed inside. It just gets rejected out of hand.

  When you are trying to hit a target of truth using your own theory of evolution as your bullet, it sure is a lot easier to shoot first and then paint the target around the spot where it hit.

  There is a story going around. Three scientists approached God, saying, “We can produce life using dirt and don’t need you anymore.” God then asks the scientists to show him, which they proceed to do by starting to scoop up some dirt. Then God stops them saying, “Whoa, hold on guys, use your own dirt.”

  Ah, the arrogance of man. The last column will talk about irreducible complexity and what the fossil records show.

  Speciation Has Never Been Observed

  Finally, as promised, my last column on evolution (I think). There is so much more to talk about and three columns can’t give the topic adequate coverage. So if you like, if you e-mail me, I will give you a list of all the books I have used as research.

  One huge stumbling block for Darwinists is to show how one species evolves into another. Has this most basic building block, called speciation, ever been observed or demonstrated as one would expect as a necessary element for scientific validity? Not once.

  Even though there are many definitions of the term species, Jerry Coyne and Allen Orr, both evolutionary biologists, use the following in their book “Speciation”: “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

  In other words, humans can’t breed with animals, mammals with fish, goats with birds, etc. However, Darwin said we all come from a single common ancestor.

  It must be nice to make such claims but it would be nicer if these claims could be backed up. They obviously can’t be. There is a website, talkorigins.org that claims there have been 5 examples of observed speciation. Every one has been either dis- proven or improperly claimed in the first place.

  Two quotes are relevant here. Alan H. Linton, a bacteriologist, said in a 2001 article, “Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another…..Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution…throughout the whole array of higher multi-cellular organisms.”

  Also, William Dembski, with doctorates in both mathematics and philosophy, in his book, “Uncommon Dissent,” which is a collection of articles denouncing many of the claims Darwinists make, says, in reference to speciation, “That’s the problem with Darwinism: In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex, biological system could realistically have emerged, Darwinism offers just-so stories about how such systems might have emerged in some idealized conceptual space far removed from biological reality.”

  Again, where is the evidence for these remarkable transformations? Shouldn’t we be able to find in the fossil record proof of one species turning into another?

  As B. G. Ranganathan says, in his book “Origins?”, “There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found.”

  Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, “not a single fossil with part fins….part feet has been found.”

  I apologize for not being able to properly cover some other important areas of concern relating to Darwinism, but there are a lot of conservative issues out there that need to be addressed.

  So, in conclusion, as William Dembski says, “Why does Darwinism’s back need to be broken? Because it is no longer merely a scientific theory but an ideology. Darwin’s original proposal was actually quite modest: organisms adapt to their environments as a result of random variation and natural selection.”

  If the Darwinists kept the theory at this level of explanation, there would be no arguments. When they take the giant leap to use this theory to explain the origin of life, with all its incredible complexity, people can rightly question the validity of these claims. Michael Behe, PhD in biochemistry, warns us, properly so, when he says, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of its constructs….in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories because we have a prior commitment a commitment to materialism.”

  So feel comfortable with the fact that all Darwinists can do is belittle, insult and demean their opponents when challenged. The people mentioned above are only a few of the highly qualified scientists and intellectuals who are on your side. Also, based on the numerous polls taken by Pew, Gallup and others, apparently the general public has a lot of common sense on its side.

  Someone said it perfectly when he/sh
e said that Darwinism was the atheist’s

  creation myth.

  Petraeus Shamed His Persecutors

  Slam dunk. Total success. That’s about all you can say about the Gen. David H. Petraeus Iraq war hearings last week. Once again, the public saw a highly competent, professional man of true integrity staying calm during the vicious, mean-spirited personal attacks of the Democrat leadership.

  At the same time, he clearly exposed their hypocrisy, ineptitude and disingenuousness as they tried to strut their stuff before the cameras.

  Oliver North did the same thing to them 20 years ago, and they didn’t learn their lesson one bit. It was actually kind of laughable the way they both outclassed them.

  First of all, Bush should completely ignore Democrats’ constant calls to change

  course. He replaced Donald Rumsfeld with Robert Gates and that wasn’t enough.

  Then he put General Petraeus in charge of Iraq operations. That didn’t work. Then there was the surge strategy, which was and is operationally successful, but the Dems still weren’t happy.

  There is nothing at all that Bush could do to appease these radicals and still keep the long-term security of this country intact. They are blinded by their hatred of Bush, still angry that he beat them in two national elections (legally) and they can’t get over claiming that we shouldn’t have started the war in the first place (wrong again).

  What in heaven’s name does that have to do with formulating a course of action that will defeat al-Qaeda, win this particular battle in Iraq and continue to do everything possible to keep our country safe?

  Most people want leaders who will lead us forward with a vision and not dwell in the past. Unbelievably, you see the die-hards who continually write in and chant the same old shallow and tiresome mantra of Bush hatred.