Rambling: Theistic Evolution

In light of the Dover, PA, decision against Intelligent Decision, I wanted to take a few minutes and discuss a common "compromise" position on evolution that many well-meaning Christians take. The position, "Theistic Evolution", says that evolution on a purely mechanistic level could not have happened, and that God's intervention was required for the process to have occurred. Generally, the time scale proposed was on the order of millions of years, just as in mechanistic evolution.
While it at first seems like an appealing option for Christians, Theistic Evolution is untenable.
Theistic Evolution says that evolution is the mechanism by which God brought forth life on the earth. It requires that there be death before the Fall, something that the Bible indicates was not the case, for Genesis 2:17, Genesis 3:3, and Romans 5:12-14 all indicate that death did not exist before the Fall. Thus, the very mechanism by which natural selection works (death of the unfit) would have to exist before sin, which is not the order seen in Scripture.
For this reason, along with others that I don't have time to write about right now, Theistic Evolution is incompatible with the pattern presented in Scripture.

Commentary: It's Science Because I Said So, pt. III

Yet another round in the constant battle against dogmatic Darwinism has just gone to the Darwinists. While not totally surprising, the result is disappointing for a couple of reasons.
One is the negative tone taken by the judge in his decision. I would suggest at least skimming it, especially the last 30 or 40 pages (it's 139 pages long!). Besides the negative tone taken towards those who believe in intelligent design (who are implicitly labelled as "fundamentalists" several times), the court appears to have bought into (or already believed before the trial) the classic demarcationist argument. A full argument against demarcationism as applied to evolution can be found in the first part of the book "The Creation Hypothesis", edited by JP Moreland.
This battle is not going away any time soon, yet I fear that the Darwinists are so dogmatic that the only way for this battle to be over is for those Darwinists to leave their positions of power without educating new "disciples". If later generations wise up and reject Darwinism, then maybe biological science will be able to grow in leaps and bounds again.
Putting Darwinism aside, the implications of this decision are far-reaching. What happens to the quality of education when the topics to be studied are determined by judicial fiat? Could an elite few with enough money and some good lawyers override the will of the people as expressed through their school boards, causing socially detrimental ideas to be forced on our children? Yes, they could, if history is any indication. Now, more than ever, is a time to be in prayer for America. We are falling apart as a society, and only turning to God can help us. Politics won't work. Neither will law suits. Only when we as a society turn to Jesus will their be any hope for us again as a nation.

Rambling: Computer Viruses?

Viruses are a fact of life in this Internet Age. But as bad as viruses are, they could be worse. Consider the following excerpts from a larger list:

Gallup Virus -- 65% of PC's will be infected 45% of the time, plus or minus of 5% margin of error.

Adam and Eve Virus -- Takes a bite out of your apple.

College Dorm Virus -- Waits until you get into the shower, then sounds the fire alarm.

Elvis Virus -- Your computer becomes lazy and overweight, only to self-destruct and reappear at backwoods convenience stores all over the South.

Paul Revere Virus -- This virus doesn't horse around. It warns of an impending system crash. Once if by LAN, twice if by C:\.

Politican Virus -- This virus promises to do so much, yet once it's done running does so little.

Nike Virus -- Just does it.

Commentary: It's Science Because I Said So, pt. II

Here we go again. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a non-profit policy group in Washington, DC, has issued a report card grading each state's science standards, and, no surprise here, Kansas gets an F. Why do I say no surprise? Because any time any mention of intelligent design is made in science standards, the pro-evolution camp in the scientific community (which is the larger and more vocal part) circles the wagons and unleashes venomous rhetoric against any supporters of intelligent design. When challenged for a why, the reply inevitably boils down to something like "Evolution is science because we say so. Intelligent design is not because we don't want it to be." Therefore, anyone who teaches anything other than evolution in a dogmatic way is going to get a failing grade.
So, not surprisingly, Kansas gets an F. And, as also might be expected, I disagree with the grade wholeheartedly.
The reason the institute gave for the failing grade was the de-emphasizing of evolution. According to them, because of this, Kansas is now failing in the teaching of science to our children. Yet this reasoning is flawed. Science consists of far more than just biology. It includes physics and chemistry, to name two aspects, and both of these have nothing to do with evolution. In other words, the overall teaching of science has not been compromised. Newton's Second Law (Force = mass times acceleration) is still valid, regardless of whether humans evolved from monkeys. Water is still composed of hydrogen and oxygen, regardless of whether life began as single-cell protozoa. And that's to say nothing of the "soft" sciences such as psychology, sociology, etc. Therefore, the real problem the institute has is not with the teaching of most science in the Kansas schools. It's merely with evolution, a small component of science.
Is one aspect of one part of science so critical to everything that its removal warrants an F? The institute seems to think so. In its report, it claims that by de-emphasizing evolution, the Kansas School Board has "obfuscat[ed] the entire basis on which biology rests." This is good rhetoric, but it is bad science. De-emphasizing evolution does not affect the other sciences, as I've previously mentioned. Even within biology, though, most of the science is unaffected when evolution is removed. Cellular biology, species classification, human biology, anatomy, and every aspect of biology, except for the origin question, is unaffected by the removal of evolution. For example, house cats are classified in a certain genus and a certain species (felis catus). This classification does not depend on evolving from a common ancestor, but rather on the genetic and physiological traits that cats share with other felines, such as lions and leopards. So, as far as species classification, removing evolution has no effect on biology. This is only one example. Removing evolution, in other words, does not undermine biology as the report claims.
So, should Kansas get an F for the teaching of science? Abolutely not! As I have shown, the teaching of science has hardly been weakened. Instead, I think it has been improved, because once again, students learn that theories are based upon observation, not merely dogma. Kansas should get an A for allowing valid scientific criticisms of evolution to be presented. For too many years, evolution has been taught without mentioning any of the problems with the theory. It's time for students to be taught the full truth about evolution, including its flaws.

Story: Colonel Williams, Ch. 10, pt. I

Two months ago, I stopped work on the story due to soccer season. I thought I'd pick it back up to see where it leads.

Chapter 10 -- A Counterattack

The red rays of the setting sun shone down on the empty central square of the market. The soft, red color gave the market a somber feel.
Near the center, close to the platform, stood Williams, alone. He hardly looked at the surroundings. He knew them all too well. How could he forget? He was twenty feet from the stage, looking at the empty, wooden platform. This was where he had stood on That Day.
No sooner had those words crossed his mind then the whole, horrible sequence of events began to play themselves out before his eyes again. The petrified slave wrestled with the guard for control of the gun. Keren screamed. Williams heard the shot and felt himself get hit by someone, not something. The force of the blow knocked him to the ground. His right shoulder protested in pain as he hit the unyielding stone pavement of the courtyard.
Had the bullet him? He reached with his left hand to see. No, he was fine; the shot had missed him. Who, then, had knocked him out of the way? And whom had the bullet hit, if anyone? He started to turn over to see, and then the whole scene shifted.
Once again, Williams found himself alone in the market courtyard. This time, men were carrying boxes out of the office of Mr. Johnson, the market owner. What were they doing?
Just as he was about to speak, though, the men suddenly vanished.
Williams awoke. He was in his room at Providence, and it was about 6:00 in the morning. In about twenty minutes, the sun would finish rising, and it would be time to get up.

Rambling: LotR Quiz 37

The last quiz. Ironically, it's number 37. I didn't plan it that way, but it's a nice bit of serendipity.
Question 105 – Who initially sets off with Frodo to the Grey Havens? (Choose as many as apply)
a. Gandalf
b. Bilbo
c. Sam
d. Merry
e. Pippin

Question 106 – What is the hobbits reaction to Frodo’s departure at the Grey Havens
a. They aren’t surprised. They knew about it the whole time.
b. They wonder who his travel agent is
c. They ask for directions to the West
d. They are surprised

Question 107 – Where is Sam when he says, “Well, I’m back.”
a. The edge of the Shire
b. Outside Bag End
c. In Bag End, while seated at the table
d. At the Grey Havens

105. Movie: a,b,c,d,e; Book: b
106. Movie: d; Book: a
107. Movie: b; Book: c

Rambling: LotR Quiz 36

Question 102—What does Frodo title his account of what happened during the War of the Ring?
a. There and Back Again
b. The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King
c. The Lord of the Rings
d. Peter Jackson’s Greatest Ideas

Question 103 – What does Bilbo ride in/on during his last journey through the Shire?
a. A pony
b. A wagon
c. A mule
d. A chariot

Question 104 – When does Bilbo ask about what happened to the Ring?
a. As he rides in the wagon on the way out of the Shire
b. As Frodo talks with him in the Grey Havens
c. As he visits Frodo in Minas Tirith during Aragorn’s coronation
d. As the hobbits are passing through Rivendell on their way home

102. Movie: c; Book: b
103. Movie: b; Book: a
104. Movie: a; Book: d