Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Evolution’ Category

Actually they have only pieced together 60% of what they believe to be a DNA structure of “Neanderthal Man” from many fragments from different fossils. Then they guessed at the rest of the 40% based on their subjective viewpoint!

And to think they would want to create an actual being from this hodge podge of mixed DNA! What kind of beast would emerge?

from The Daily Telegraph:

Neanderthal man has taken a step closer to once again roaming the earth after scientists unlocked the genetic make-up of our closest relative for the first time.

Researchers announced that they had finally managed to reconstruct the entire DNA of the former species in a world breakthrough that follows a similar feat for the mammoth.

Now they believe the milestone could help discover why Neanderthal man, a short hairier version of a human, became extinct 30,000 years ago.

It also raises the possibility – although played down by scientists – that the code could be used to clone a living version of the creature.

Professor Svante Paabo, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, sequenced more than one billion DNA fragments extracted from three fossilised Neanderthal bones found in a cave in Croatia.

They believe they have managed to identify the basic structure of the code – more than 60 per cent – and now aim to fill in the gaps using computer models that compare it to human and chimpanzee DNA.

The DNA also provide insights into how the genome of this extinct form differed from that of modern humans and also highlight genetic changes that enabled modern humans to leave Africa and rapidly spread around the world, starting around 100,000 years ago.

Neanderthals were the closest relatives of currently living humans. They lived in Europe and parts of Asia until they became extinct about 30,000 years ago.

For more than a hundred years, palaeontologists and anthropologists have been striving to uncover their evolutionary relationship to modern humans.

Prof Paabo, a pioneer in the field of ancient DNA research, made the first contribution to the understanding of our genetic relationship to Neanderthals when he sequenced their mitochondrial DNA, or the engine room of the cell, in 1997.

He announced the latest milestone at the opening of the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

In order to reliably compare the Neanderthal DNA sequences to those of humans and chimpanzees, the group based in Leipzig has performed detailed studies of where chemical damage tends to occur in the ancient DNA and how it causes errors in the DNA sequences.

The researchers found that such errors occur most frequently towards the ends of molecules and that the vast majority of them are due to a particular modification of one of the bases in the DNA that occurs over time in fossil remains.

They then applied this knowledge to identify which of the DNA fragments from the fossils come from the Neanderthal genome and which from other microorganisms that have contaminated the bones during the thousands of years they lay buried in the caves.

They have also developed novel and more sensitive computer algorithms to put the Neandertal DNA fragments in order and compare them to the human genome.

Inevitably the breakthrough will evoke the idea of cloning a live version of the extinct creature.

Back in November when a team of experts announced they had sequenced the DNA of a mammoth, they brought up the possibility.

However other scientists played down the chances of it becoming reality.

Aside from the moral questions such an act would provoke they pointed out that it would be “like trying to build a car with only 80 per cent of the parts, and knowing that some of them are already broken”.

Read Full Post »

from Newsbusters:

A bestselling author has called octuplets-mother Nadya Sulamen a ‘murderer’ and warns of overpopulation saying, “we need to lose 4.4 billion people.”

“STOP HAVING CHILDREN.” Steven Kotler has declared that responsible adults should stop having children in order to save the planet.

Those who are having kids, are being selfish and stealing from the future, the rest of humanity, and “every living thing on the earth,” he wrote. Have too many kids and you should go to jail.

This isn’t a joke. Kotler writes a blog called “The Playing Field” on the Psychology Today Web site. He is a best selling author and an advocate of controlling population growth. His latest solution: a five-year moratorium on having kids.

Kotler’s reasoning is that the planet is running out of resources. “You think the economy is bad now – wait a few years,” Kotler said. “Wait until we’re almost completely out of oil and food and water and available land … we need to lose 4.4 billion people and we need to lose them fast.”

Those comments came just days after Nadya Sulamen, a single mother of six, gave birth to octuplets, and Kotler had an opinion about her as well. “She’s a criminal,” Kotler declared. “She’s a murderer. She’s not only guaranteeing her kids a very hard life, she’s killing all of us.”

Kotler isn’t the the first person to say humans are destroying the planet. Paul Watson of the radical Sea Shepherd Society, has called for the global population to fall below one billion, because “we are killing our host, the planet Earth,” Watson opined. “I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the ‘AIDS of the Earth.’ I make no apologies for that statement,” Watson has said.

Like Watson, Kotler doesn’t think much of humans. In December, writing on “The Playing Field,” he said:

So do I think that a dog’s life is worth more than a humans? I think that no dog has ever, intentionally, for reasons of selfish greed, destroyed their home like we have ours. I think that yes, there are way too many people on the planet, and while I’m not advocating mass euthanasia (though mandatory birth control sounds pretty good to me), I think before we start saying humans are worth more than dogs, we need to examine exactly what we have contributed to the quality of life for all species on this planet, not just our own.

Such ideas are hardly original. Thomas Malthus, an influential 18th century economist and philosopher, was an early proponent of population control. He reduced the human position on earth to a mathematical observation: “Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio,” Malthus wrote in 1798. “Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.”

Nearly two centuries later, America scientist Paul Ehrlich took up the Malthusian standard, and added his own shrill urgency. In his hugely successful 1968 book, The Population Bomb, Ehrlich foresaw that, “In the 1970s and 1980s…hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Ehrlich’s answer was “compulsory birth regulation…(through) the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired family size.”

Of course, Malthus, Ehrlich and other doomsayers have been proven spectacularly wrong. Kolter didn’t address that fact in his piece.

Read Full Post »

When a society casts itself adrift of its Christian moorings it heads down a road of self loathing insanity and hence self induced Annihilation.

How ironic that those groups in the world who want to destroy western society believe in having very large families!

Those groups do not need to worry about warring with Western Societies, as western societies are doing a pretty good job in actively destroying themselves.

Now the majority of people in Western nations would say they do not agree with the extreme views in the article below.

But the majority of people would agree with the Humanist ideology of “family planning” which comes from the same polluted well as the ideas in the article below.

Romans 1:26:

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

From Feministing:

But what if there were no families? What if we say no to reproduction?

My understanding of reproduction is that it is the basis of the institutions of marriage and family, and those two provide the moorings to the structure of gender and sexual oppression.

Family is the social institution that ensures unpaid reproductive and domestic labour, and is concerned with initiating a new generation into the gendered (as I analyzed here) and classed social set-up. Not only that, families prevent the flow of money from the rich to the poor: wealth accumulates in a few hands to be squandered on and bequeathed to the next generation, and that makes families as economic units selfishly pursue their own interests and become especially prone to consumerism. 

So it makes sense to say that if the world has to change, reproduction has to go. Of course there is an ecological responsibility to reduce the human population, or even end it , and a lot was said about that on the blogosphere recently (here, and here), but an ecological consciousness is not how I came to my decision to remain child-free

Because reproduction is seen as a psychological need, even a biological impulse, that would supposedly override any rational concerns arising out of a sense of responsibility, ecological or otherwise, I would like to propose emotional conditioning to counter such a need or impulse to reproduce. . . . .

Using my own life as a case study, I conclude that I came to a resolve not to reproduce through largely unconscious emotional reactions . I like children, but every time I fantasized of having one, I felt pangs of guilt over how for this ‘impulse’ of mine, someone else would have to put their body on the line. . . . . . .

Thus as I realized how the cultural imperative on starting a family was unfair to women and the poor, I felt an instinctive aversion to it. That is the emotionally conditioned response that could override our responses to needs and instincts that make us want to reproduce. And if we rule out the biological ‘instinct’, which is strictly only to have sex and not to reproduce, my case for saying no to reproduction becomes much stronger. . . . . .

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

I mean come on! Does anyone need ANY more proof that Roman Catholicism is an Apostate and Idolatrous Church, when it shuts out those who defend that an Intelligent being was the original and ultimate Creator!

from UNCOMMON DESCENT:

In First Things (December 2008), editor Richard John Neuhaus comments on the decision not to invite intelligent design theorists like Michael Behe, author of Edge of Evolution to the Vatican conference next March:

So let’s see now: The conference is strictly scientific. In that case, there would seem to be no reason for the Church to be sponsoring it, since there are numerous other institutions that attend to the strictly scientific. But then we are told the conference will also include philosophers and theologians, but only those who are rational – meaning, presumably, those who do not raise critical questions about the strictly scientific. We are told it will exclude scientific ideologues who reject that philosophers and theologians have to say about creation, history, teleology, and human nature, and will also exclude scientists who, on the basis of scientific evidence, contend, as the Catholic Church contends, for design and purpose in nature. The organizers seem to think they are being even-handed, but it is all quite confusing. One would not like to think that the purpose of the March conference is to secure for the Catholic Church a clean bill of health from Jeffrey Sachs and others who condemn any deviation from scientistic ideology as anti-intellectualism.

Actually, not inviting biochemist Michael Behe is scandalous. Behe, who happens to be a Catholic, is in no sense a philosopher; he is a biochemist, and the Darwin cult’s howls of outrage against Edge are the best evidence that he is on to something and that his work should be seriously considered at such a conference.

However, I think the real purpose of the conference is precisely what Fr. Neuhaus hopes it isn’t: Faith and science bores reassure each other that they are the clever ones – when they are merely the irrelevant ones.

Lots of faith and science bores are smart enough to read and understand Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box or Edge of Evolution (or for that matter Bill Dembski’s Design Inference or No Free Lunch). But when talkng to me they carefully avoid considering the arguments laid out therein, and utter instead some pious fatuity about God using evolution – like that was a new idea that had never occurred to anyone! And usually at considerable and entirely uncalled for length.

Come to think of it, Behe is a working biochemist, and the faith and science snooze fest might only be wasting his time.

Read Full Post »

from Fox News:

A professor at a Vatican-sponsored university expressed dismay Tuesday that some Christian groups reject the theory of evolution — implicitly criticizing the literal interpretation of the Bible. 

Further emphasizing the official Catholic stance, a Vatican official restated the Church position that evolution is not incompatible with faith.

Both men spoke at a press conference ahead of a March event aimed at fostering dialogue between religion and science, and appraising evolution 150 years after Charles Darwin’s landmark “On the Origin of Species.”

The forum is being organized by Rome’s prestigious Gregorian Pontifical University, which is highly influential in Vatican circles, and by the University of Notre Dame in the U.S. state of Indiana.

Popes going back to the mid-20th century have “recognized the scientific value of the theory of biological evolution,” Gennaro Auletta, who teaches philosophy of science at the Gregorian, told reporters. “Greater understanding and assimilation of such subject matter by clergy and faithful has been hoped for.”

“I would like to point out that unfortunately one cannot say that about the faithful of all Christian confessions, as media reports indicate,” Auletta said.

Auletta appeared to be referring to stories about fundamentalist churches that maintain a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the belief that the world was created in six days.

Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasi told reporters that: “One thing is sure. Evolution is not incompatible with faith.”

“Creationism from a strictly theological view makes sense, but when it is used in scientific fields it becomes useless,” Ravasi said.

Quoting the late Pope John Paul II, Ravasi said that “evolution can no longer be considered a hypothesis.”

Pope Benedict XVI warned last week against fundamentalists’ literal interpretations of the Bible.

The pontiff told a gathering of intellectuals and academics in Paris that the structure of the Bible “excludes by its nature everything that today is known as fundamentalism. In effect, the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text,” Benedict said.

Benedict, in a book published last year, praised scientific progress, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions that science alone cannot answer. In the book, he stopped short of endorsing what is known as “intelligent design.”

Intelligent design proponents believe that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force, rather than evolving from more primitive forms.

Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, an influential cardinal considered close to Benedict, has condemned a U.S. federal court decision that barred a Pennsylvania school district from teaching intelligent design in biology class.

Schoenborn has said he wants to correct what he says is a widespread misconception that the Catholic Church has given blanket endorsement to Darwin’s theories.

Read Full Post »

from Understand The Times:

Evolution, according to its biological definition, is a mechanism that changes life through time. Although for years, many have used the idea of evolution to explain away God, there are many today who are saying, because of evolution, everything is God. This trend is obvious in Great Britain, the very country where Charles Darwin authored his theory – physics has turned into metaphysics? How is this possible?

Glastonbury is situated in the southern part of England. From antiquity, Glastonbury has been known as a mystical center where numerous people have made the claim they have encountered the spiritual realm. Many and fantastic are the legends, a mythology which is still alive and growing today. Every year people go there from all over the world seeking spiritual solutions to their physical problems.

I had the opportunity to visit Glastonbury in the spring of 1997 while I was in England. I had just spent a couple of days researching the life of Charles Darwin and investigating the impact this man had on so many lives. His message, centered on natural selection and survival of the fittest, still shapes the thinking of evolutionists today. His motive, a disdain for Christianity, provides the basis for the “scientific” view there is no need for the supernatural. Today, throughout England and around the world, numerous monuments erected in his honor called “natural history museums,” project his beliefs as if he were God.

My trip to Glastonbury and Stonehenge revealed another aspect of Darwinism that most “evolutionary biologists” are not thrilled to discuss. The idea of natural selection may have been designed to explain God away, but in reality, through time, it has been the catalyst which has created an environment which has done exactly the opposite. It seems there has been a major shift in thinking over the past few decades. Our present generation has become frustrated with believing in naturalism. Now they are willing to believe that anything and everything is God.

There is no question mysticism and superstition, which modern science was supposed to have eliminated has made a comeback in Great Britain. The shops in Glastonbury were filled with spiritual paraphernalia which would make one think we had returned to the pagan past.

At the core of these resurrected ideas was the basic belief in evolution. Man, according to the “new spirituality” is on the verge of taking a giant leap of evolution. “Space brothers” or “spiritual guides” who it is believed have evolved to a “higher lever,” are waiting for us to make the leap. Meanwhile, worldly intellects are encouraged to spend their time practicing yoga, humming mantras or rubbing crystals. There are many ways to contact the “gods.”

I am fascinated with how evolution has evolved over the years – from mysticism to Darwinism then back to mysticism again. History has repeated itself, just as it has done many times before. The only thing that is unique this time is that “evolutionary mysticism” is a global religion. The Bible describes this current trend as “Christian Babylonianism.” The Bible also makes it clear that it will trigger off God’s wrath. Based upon my understanding of current events, it appears the time of God’s wrath may be soon!

Read Full Post »

from Way of Life:

The following is excerpted from our book The New Age Tower of Babel, available from Way of Life Literature.

Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961), the founder of analytical psychology, has been influential, not only in society at large, but also in the New Age movement and within almost all aspects of Christianity. Jung has influenced both modernists and evangelicals. His writings are influential within the contemplative movement. He has been promoted by Paul Tillich, Morton Kelsey, John Sanford, Thomas Moore, Joseph Campbell, John Spong, Richard Foster, Agnes Sanford, and Gary Thomas, to name a few. Jung’s psychological typing provides the underpinning for the Personality Profiling part of Rick Warren’s SHAPE program, which is used by countless churches and churches and institutions.

Jung (pronounced Young) has been called “the psychologist of the 21st century” (Merill Berger, The Wisdom of the Dreams, front cover).

Ed Hird says, “One could say without overstatement that Carl Jung is the Father of Neo-Gnosticism and the New Age Movement” (Hird, “Carl Jung, Neo-Gnosticism, and the Meyers-Briggs Temperament Indicator (MBTI),” March 18, 1998; reprinted in Who’s Driving the Purpose Driven Church by James Sundquist, Appendix C).

Jeffrey Satinover says:

“Jung’s direct and indirect impact on mainstream Christianity–and thus on Western culture–has been incalculable. It is no exaggeration to say that the theological positions of most mainstream denominations in their approach to pastoral care, as well as in their doctrines and liturgy–have become more or less identical with Jung’s psychological/symbolic theology” (Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, p. 240, quoted from Ed Hird).

Jung collaborated with Sigmund Freud from 1907 to 1912, but after a falling out they went their separate ways.

In true New Age fashion, Jung explored Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, I Ching, astrology, Spiritualism, Gnosticism, alchemy, dream interpretation, mandala symbolism, Theosophy, Greek Mythology, and more. He spent time in India studying eastern religion and folk lore. He wrote the first introduction to Zen Buddhism. He amassed one of the largest collections of spiritualistic writings found on the European continent (Jeffrey Santinover, The Empty Self, p.

28). Jung used the divination methods of I Ching in the 1920s and 1930s and the training program of the Jung Institute of Zurich originally included this practice (Richard Noll, The Jung

Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement, 1994, p. 333, quoted from Ed Hird). In a letter to Freud, Jung said: “I made horoscopic calculations in order to find a clue to the core of psychological truth. … I dare say that we shall one day discover in astrology a good deal of knowledge which has been intuitively projected into the heavens” (Richard Webster, Why Freud Was Wrong, 1995, p. 385). Beginning in 1911 Jung quoted G.R.S. Mead, a practicing Theosophist, “regularly in his works through his entire life” (Richard Noll, The Jung Cult, p. 69).

Jung communicated with spirits all his life. He “experienced precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and haunting” (Harper’s Encyclopedia of Mystical and Paranormal Experience). His mother and maternal grandmother were “ghost seers.” His mother spent much of her time in her separate bedroom, “enthralled by the spirits that she said visited her at night”

(“Carl Jung,” Wikipedia). Her family was heavily involved in séances. For many years Jung attended séances with his mother and two female cousins (John Kerr, A Most Dangerous Method: The Story of Jung, Freud, and Sabina Spielrein, 1993, pp. 50, 54, quoted from Ed Hird). His grandmother, Augusta Preiswerk, “fell into a three-day trance at age twenty, during which she communicated with spirits of the dead and gave prophecies”

(Harper’s).

As a child Jung felt that he had two personalities, one was himself the schoolboy and the other was a man from the 18th century. This other personality, named Philemon, had a life of its own and talked with Jung. Obviously it was a familiar spirit. When Jung had a breakdown following his separation from Sigmund Freud and was nearly suicidal he renewed communication with this spirit and Philemon became his guide. Jung said, “Philemon represented a force which was not myself. … It was he who taught me psychic objectivity” (James Sundquist, A Review of the Purpose Driven Life). Philemon appeared to Jung variously as “an old man with the horns of a bull … and the wings of a fisher” and as Elijah and as Salome. The latter addressed Jung as Christ (C.G. Jung: Analytical Psychology: Notes of the Seminar Given in 1925, Princeton University Press, 1989, pp. 86, 98).

After Jung’s split from Freud, he suffered a six-year-long breakdown “during which he had psychotic fantasies” and experienced “numerous paranormal phenomena” (Harper’s). He became immersed in “the world of the dead” and wrote the book Seven Sermons to the Dead under the name of a Gnostic writer named Basilides.

Jung’s father was a pastor, but he doubted the Christian faith. Jung openly rejected Christ. He said:

“Lord Jesus never became quite real for me, never quite acceptable, never quite lovable, for again and again I would think of his underground counterpart [referring to a reoccurring immoral dream he had]. … Lord Jesus seemed to me in some ways a god of death. … Secretly, his love and kindness, which I always heard praised, appeared doubtful to me” (Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, p. 13).

There are other things that Jung said in relation to Christ that are even more abominable but I do not want to quote them. It is enough to say that he was a demonically-deceived blasphemer and Christ rejecter of the highest order.

Jung considered all religions to be myths, but he felt they were useful. He believed that the secret of life is found “at the mystical heart of all religions” and that it consists of a “journey of transformation” to find the true self and bring it into harmony with the Divine.

Jung said that man should love himself for in so doing he is loving Jesus, because Jesus is “you”

(Bill Isley, “The Ragamuffin Gospel: A Critique,” PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries Newsletter, July-August 2003).

Jung said that Jesus, Mani, Buddha, and Lao-Tse are all “pillars of the spirit” and that he “could give none preference over the other” (John Dourley, C.G. Jung and Paul Tillich, p. 65).

Jung believed in the “Collective Unconscious,” which is supposedly the universal consciousness of mankind that lies at a subconscious level. It apparently consists of the sum total of man’s thinking since he evolved from animals, and through psychiatry and mystical religion man can delve into this realm. Jung defined the collective consciousness as “the sediment of all the experience of the universe of all time, and is also the image of the universe that has been in process of formation from untold ages”

(Collected Papers on Analytical Psychology, “The Psychology of Unconscious Process,” p. 432).

This, of course, is one of the foundational doctrines of the New Age and doubtless came from Jung’s study of eastern religion and various forms of occultic mysticism such as Theosophy.

The “collective unconscious” is pure myth.

Richard Webster wisely observes that “the Unconscious is not simply an occult entity for whose real existence there is no palpable evidence. It is an illusion produced by language–a kind of intellectual hallucination”

(Richard Webster, Why Freud Was Wrong, p. 250, quoted from Ed Hird).

Jung was heavily involved in trying to understand “the psyche” through dream analysis. It is a part of “depth psychology” which seeks to understand the hidden or deeper parts of human experience.

He believed that dreams reflect both the personal and the “collective” unconscious and that they contain revelations as well as fantasies.

Jung held to the blasphemous gnostic belief that good and evil can be reconciled.

“For Jung, good and evil evolved into two equal, balanced, cosmic principles that belong together in one overarching synthesis. This relativization of good and evil by their reconciliation is the heart of the ancient doctrines of gnosticism, which also located spirituality, hence morality, within man himself. Hence ‘the union of opposites'” (Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, p. 240).

Jung held to the New Age-emerging church principle that “both paths are right” (Dourley, C. G. Jung and Paul Tillich, p. 279). The emerging church calls this “orthoparadoxy.”

Jung believed in reincarnation and “drew many of his beliefs from the Tibetan Book of the Dead”

(Harper’s Encyclopedia of Mysticism).

Jung believed in the power of visualization. He said that holding the mental images of Jesus and Mary has power for overcoming negativity and producing good (Bob Guste, Mary at My Side, p. 58).

Jung believed we are entering the Age of Aquarius. In a 1940 letter to Godwin Baynes he said: “1940 is the year when we approach the meridian of the first star in Aquarius. It is the premonitory earthquake of the New Age” (Merill Berger and Stephen Segaller, The Wisdom of the Dreams, p. 162, quoted from Ed Hird). Jung “feared greatly for the future of humankind, and said the only salvation lay in becoming more conscious” (Harper’s). This is a reference to attaining a higher state of consciousness through psychology and mysticism.

Later in life Jung became interested in UFOs and wrote a book on the subject entitled Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies.

Jung was married to the same woman for 52 years, but he had illicit relationships with other women.

Read Full Post »

Romans 1:24-25:

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator

from The Weekly Standard:

You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the “dignity” of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called “plant rights” is being seriously debated.

A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a provision requiring “account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms.” No one knew exactly what it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, “The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants,” is enough to short circuit the brain.

A “clear majority” of the panel adopted what it called a “biocentric” moral view, meaning that “living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive.” Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim “absolute ownership” over plants and, moreover, that “individual plants have an inherent worth.” This means that “we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily.”

The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to feed the farmer’s herd–the report doesn’t say). But then, while walking home, he casually “decapitates” some wildflowers with his scythe. The panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can’t agree why. The report states, opaquely:

At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer toward other organisms or because something bad is being done to the flowers themselves.

What is clear, however, is that Switzerland’s enshrining of “plant dignity” is a symptom of a cultural disease that has infected Western civilization, causing us to lose the ability to think critically and distinguish serious from frivolous ethical concerns. It also reflects the triumph of a radical anthropomorphism that views elements of the natural world as morally equivalent to people.

Why is this happening? Our accelerating rejection of the Judeo-Christian world view, which upholds the unique dignity and moral worth of human beings, is driving us crazy. Once we knocked our species off its pedestal, it was only logical that we would come to see fauna and flora as entitled to rights.

The intellectual elites were the first to accept the notion of “species-ism,” which condemns as invidious discrimination treating people differently from animals simply because they are human beings. Then ethical criteria were needed for assigning moral worth to individuals, be they human, animal, or now vegetable.

Rising to the task, leading bioethicists argue that for a human, value comes from possessing sufficient cognitive abilities to be deemed a “person.” This excludes the unborn, the newborn, and those with significant cognitive impairments, who, personhood theorists believe, do not possess the right to life or bodily integrity. This thinking has led to the advocacy in prestigious medical and bioethical journals of using profoundly brain impaired patients in medical experimentation or as sources of organs.

The animal rights movement grew out of the same poisonous soil. Animal rights ideology holds that moral worth comes with sentience or the ability to suffer. Thus, since both animals and humans feel pain, animal rights advocates believe that what is done to an animal should be judged morally as if it were done to a human being. Some ideologues even compare the Nazi death camps to normal practices of animal husbandry. For example, Charles Patterson wrote in Eternal Treblinka–a book specifically endorsed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals–that “the road to Auschwitz begins at the slaughterhouse.”

Eschewing humans as the pinnacle of “creation” (to borrow the term used in the Swiss constitution) has caused environmentalism to mutate from conservationism–a concern to properly steward resources and protect pristine environs and endangered species–into a willingness to thwart human flourishing to “save the planet.” Indeed, the most radical “deep ecologists” have grown so virulently misanthropic that Paul Watson, the head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, called humans “the AIDS of the earth,” requiring “radical invasive therapy” in order to reduce the population of the earth to under a billion.

As for “plant rights,” if the Swiss model spreads, it may hobble biotechnology and experimentation to improve crop yields. As an editorial in Nature News put it:

The [Swiss] committee has .  .  . come up with few concrete examples of what type of experiment might be considered an unacceptable insult to plant dignity. The committee does not consider that genetic engineering of plants automatically falls into this category, but its majority view holds that it would if the genetic modification caused plants to “lose their independence”–for example by interfering with their capacity to reproduce.

One Swiss scientist quoted in the editorial worried that “plant dignity” provides “another tool for opponents to argue against any form of plant biotechnology” despite the hope it offers to improve crop yields and plant nutrition.

What folly. We live in a time of cornucopian abundance and plenty, yet countless human beings are malnourished, even starving. In the face of this cruel paradox, worry about the purported rights of plants is the true immorality.

Read Full Post »

 From Crossroads: 

In early 2007 the government of the United Kingdom sent copies of Al Gore’s global warming DVD, An Inconvenient Truth, to all secondary schools in England, Wales and Scotland. This action was part of a nationwide “Sustainable Schools Year of Action” which had been launched in 2006.

Showing the Gore DVD in UK public schools was challenged in the courts, however, on the basis that the schools are legally forbidden to promote partisan political views and that UK schools are required, when dealing with political issues, to provide a balanced presentation of opposing views.

Presiding court judge, Michael Burton, ruled that the Gore film contains numerous errors made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.” As a consequence, said Judge Burton, the film could be shown only on the condition that it be accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore’s “one-sided” views in order to point out that the film’s “apocalyptic vision” was not an impartial analysis of climate change.

At the same time, however, Gore’s movie of “alarmism and exaggerations” has been shown, and continues to be shown, in countless American schools-shown to children at all grade levels not just high school-and shown without any warning labels whatsoever.

In this way our school children are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign of the global warming fanatics. Such programs are not intended to educate our children but rather to indoctrinate them with the attitudes, values and beliefs of the leftists.

The UK distribution of the Gore DVD was part of a “sustainable development” education program. Citizens worldwide need to become informed about what “sustainable development” actually means. It is not about conservation or genuine environmental protection. It is really about ideology and politics; it means indoctrination programs in our schools-not geared to protect our environment but only intended to advocate the agenda of the big government global leftists.

The Earth Charter clarifies what the term “sustainable development” means in our world (www.earthcharter.org). The Earth Charter indicates that “sustainable development” means legalized abortion, gay rights, eliminating the right to bear arms, promotion of New Age/Pantheism, advocating global government and using our education system to indoctrinate children in all the political attitudes, values and beliefs mentioned above.

The Earth Charter is the common statement of faith agreed to by the major environmental groups worldwide and by the UN. The Earth Charter calls on all nations to carry out education for sustainable development (as the Charter defines the term).

Education for “sustainable development” is part of the “transformational education” that now dominates America’s education system. Well-known education theorist Shirley McCune, in her article called “Restructuring Education,” said:

“Our society has undergone profound economic, demographic and social transformation-a transformation that impacts virtually every aspect of our individual and collective lives.”

McCune says that education also must be “transformational” in nature; that is, education must focus on changing the attitudes, values and beliefs of the child to match the worldview of the radicals. Education is no longer about learning the knowledge and skills necessary for a free society.

Because our children are being indoctrinated into radical environmentalism, they do not learn the new information that contradicts the global warming fantasy. For example, over the past few years several ancient maps have been discovered that picture Antarctica ice-free at least in part. One such map, drawn by well-known French map-maker Oronteus Finaeus in 1531 is pictured here: map-ice.jpg

There is no serious question about the authenticity of this map. It pictures the globe from the perspective of the Antarctic South Pole, long before Antarctica was supposedly discovered. It also clearly shows South America, Southern Africa and Madagascar. The coastline of Antarctica is pictured as being ice-free with inlets, bays, rivers and mountain ranges. The map is extraordinarily accurate. In all likelihood, people were living on Antarctica at the time the source-maps for the Finaeus map were drawn. (Two other recently discovered ancient maps also show all these features.)

What do such maps tell us? They demonstrate that at the time some of the source-maps were drawn, around 500 B.C., Antarctica was at least partially ice-free and people were sailing there and exploring the continent extensively. They were also making maps that were highly accurate. They were additionally exploring South America-long before the time of Columbus.

This is exciting stuff-the kind of information that makes education in world history absolutely fascinating. But our children will never learn any of this in school. Why not? Because it contradicts the global warming fantasy. When the Finaeus source-maps were drawn, the earth was obviously much warmer than it is today. The earth was substantially warmer long before any fossil fuels were being used to any significant extent, long before people were releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This means that global temperature change results from something other than carbon dioxide.

The chart below reveals other important information our children will never learn in school. The chart, based on well-known information from the UN’s panel on climate change, reveals that the Earth’s climate was about 4 degrees Celsius warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today. Once again, this warm period took place before we were burning fossil fuels. This warm period one thousand years ago was the time when the Vikings settled Greenland (which they called “Greenland” because it was green, at least close to the coast, not ice-covered as it is today.) It was also the time when the Vikings sailed to North America which they could accomplish in the warmer climate of that time.  

climate-chart.jpg

If carbon dioxide is not the cause of global warming, then what is? The following chart, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, reveals that sun spot activity is the real cause of global warming. Notice the close correlation between sun activity and global temperature. Sun activity is the primary reason the globe has experienced far warmer, and colder, periods in the past as compared to today, as revealed in the following chart

As is obvious from the chart, global temperature variation is primarily the result of sun activity. This cause-effect relationship explains why global temperatures have varied far more in the past, long before human beings burned fossil fuels, than in the past several hundred years. Once again, this is important information our children will never learn in school the reason being it contradicts the global warming fraud. Our children are not being educated, they are being indoctrinated. They are being subjected to transformational education-propaganda intended to mold their attitudes, beliefs and values to match that of the radical left. climate-graph.jpg

When will our nation wake up to the truth of transformational education? Our children are being indoctrinated, not educated. This is the real battle for freedom of our time. It is the battle for freedom of this generation. Millions of brave Americans have risked their lives, and given their lives, for our freedom. Why are we now willing to give that freedom away?*

* For more information on the battle for freedom in our schools, see the author’s book: America’s Schools: The Battleground for Freedom, EdWatch,

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: