STR † THE FREEDOM BLOG

Friends,

A common criticism of ID made by neo-darwinist liars is that our science of Intelligent Design brings no benefits. They claim that ID is useless because it has no practical applications. How wrong they are. More than any other science, I predict that advances in ID biology will yield important discoveries in medicine and soon people will forget entirely about the discredited theory of Evolution. The topic of today’s article is only the “tip of the iceberg” compared to what the ID approach has to offer.

Some recent presentations on the “ID the Future Podcast” by the Discovery Institute’s Luskin-award winning Casey Luskin and Senior Fellow Michael Behe have corrected some common liberal misconceptions about neo-darwinist evolution, these misconceptions have enormous medical impact.

When you visit a doctor with a cold, why is it that he may be reluctant to prescribe a life-saving antibiotic? Could it be because your doctor has fallen for a neo-darwinist lie?

In a nutshell, these podcasts explain that doctors have mis-understood the concept of antibiotic resistance, mainly because they have applied a flawed materialistic, evolutionary world-view to this problem. Doctors often restrict the prescription of anti-biotics because they fear that antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria will evolve, thus creating super-bacteria, which they incorrectly believe might be very deadly diseases. Antibiotic resistant bacterial infections are often cited as evidence for the power of neo-darwinian evolutionary theory. But is it?

What they failed to notice was that each time a bacteria becomes immune to an antibiotic, it usually becomes dramatically weakened and less able to survive in other respects. Antibiotic is like a poision for bacteria. If you took repeated doeses of poison would it make you stronger? Of course, not and the evolutionist’s view makes as much sense as drinking poison to stay healthy!

See “Is Antibiotic Resistance Evidence for Darwinian Evolution?”:
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-06-15T12_37_45-07_00

Evolutionist doctors believe that antibiotic resistance is a bad thing because in their world-view, the thing they fear the most is a strain of bacteria which is resistant to multiple forms of antibiotic; however what they have failed to comprehend is that such a bacterial strain would have been so weakened by evolution as to become hardly a danger to mankind.

Why should eliteist liberal doctors who perform abortions get to decide who receives antibiotics? These drugs are a gift from God to help us fight the Devil’s plague. The Bible commands us to use all weapons at our disposal to fight the enemy.

Why has this knowledge been suppressed? I believe that elitist liberal doctors who have an interest in controlling our access to medication do not want us to know how easy it would be to eliminate all bacterial disease. They keep the antibiotics for themselves, and their liberal friends in order to kill-off hard-working Christians and their families. There is a simple solution to this problem, and it’s a perfectly conservative proposal that would make any Reagan conservative smile:

How would President Reagan have solved this problem: Simple - he’d trust a free, unregulated market economy to distribute antibiotics to anybody who through hard-work and diligence can afford them. Why should Americans be forced to tolerate government hand-outs for these drugs? A free market economy in which the drug-companies have direct access to customers is the only fair way to sell these products.

We simply need to de-regulate the market for antibiotics, so that anybody can buy what they need. Why should we care if the bacteria will become “antibiotic resistant”. As Michael Behe explains in this podcast, a resistant bacteria has been weakened and is therefore unable to cause infection.

“An Interview with Michael Behe author of The Edge of Evolution”
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-06-13T14_11_59-07_00

Doctors have misunderstood the nature of evolution. Mislead by neo-darwinist lies they have imagined that evolution is a creative, intelligent force that can somehow make bacteria more deadly. As Behe explains, Evolution is nothing to be afraid of, and can only practically weaken a strain of bacteria to the point where it is no longer a threat to mankind.

That’s the kind of practical important results that come from a study of ID - now why is it that Evolutionists are still in denial?

Yours in Christ,

Tristan J. Shuddery

5 comments

Ask a materialist if an infinitely powerful entity is possible, and they will reply with a “No!”, without even bothering to consider your question for a moment. The materialist’s understanding of the laws of thermodynamics exclude any knowledge of systems that have infinite energy. Unfortunately for materialists, their understanding of these basic scientific principles is about to receive a major challenge.

Genius magnet-man Richard Walche outside his company’s high-tech laboratory. Steorn’s desire to find a source of free energy may also be the best validation for William Dembski’s ID theories.

Sean McCarthy and Richard Walshe, the two boffins behind Steorn Research unveiled their latest gizmo: The Orbo, a magnetic engine which according to their carefully controlled experiments can produce up to three times as much energy as is put into it, effectively creating an infinite amount of energy from apparently nowhere.

Just like the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Steorn’s discoveries have been called blasphemy by the pharisees of our day: Materialist scientists like Richard Dawkins. The Bible teaches us to stand by our convictions, indeed Steorn’s CEO knows that his product works in the same way that he knows God exists. What more could you want than that?

Steorn’s findings totally undermine a basic premise of materialism, simply by demonstrating a confirmed physical effect that materialists predict cannot happen. These clever Irish researchers have demonstrated that the principles of thermodynamics function in a manner far closer to the predictions of ID Gurus William Dembski and William Brookfield than the clearly flawed thermodynamic claims of Stephen Hawkings and Maxwell.

Powered by magnets, Steorn’s Orbo uses no fuel at all and yet is able to produce three times as much energy as is put into it. Materialists have long claimed that this is impossible, however this chart strongly disproves that long-held materialist dogma.

The same scientists who tell you that Intelligent Design is impossible also dispute the hard-facts of Steorn’s peer-reviewed findings. I predict that this humble contraption will show the world just how much materialists have misled mainstream-science.

Thanks to Sam Chen from OverwhelmingEvidence.com for permission to re-publish this excellent article.

38 comments

The pentagon spent 7 Million dollars on the development of the so called “Gay Bomb“.
In theory this is a chemical hormone bomb that is supposed to turn enemy fighters gay. As we know gays are much more interested in having sex, then in fighting.

I admit, it’s a long shot, but why are democ-rats and liberals criticizing this innovative plan? They don’t have any ideas themselves, but they get never tired of putting others down.

The effects of the gay bomb. Terrorists in Guantanamo Bay have been exposed the the gay making chemicals and their behavior changed immediately. These former terrorists are not interested in fighting anymore, they just wanna have gay sex.
Did we already drop the gay bomb on Iran? It seems to. Mr. Ahmadinejad apparently is very interested in other males. He is probably a having his penis in another man’s anus as you read this.Why not put our minds into this and continue to fund this kind of innovation? Not only would be immediately win the war on terror, we would also effectively destroy the towelhead society. Gays hate woman, would not procreate and they they would vanish from the earth over time.

Thanks for reading.
Shelley

27 comments

Folks,
we at ShelleyTheRepublican.com don’t buy into the lies about “global warming” as you know. The courageous talk-show host Glen Beck finally set the record straight. There is no such thing as “Global Warming” or at least it’s not caused by humans.

“Global Warming” was invented by Al Gore to score political points for this run for presidency in 2008. We all know that it’s not gonna work. The American public is much to smart to believe this piece of junk-science.

A recent poll shows that only 13 percent of Congressional Republicans believe the big lie about “Global Warming”. On the other side of the aisle, among the democ-rats 95 percent believe it’s true. This just proves once more that liberals are spine-less idiots with no ability to think for themselves.

Al Gore is not fooling us. No way, Jose!

Thanks for reading,
Shelley Goodman

35 comments

Friends,

What does it mean to be a great scientist? There are some who think a scientist should spend his life in his ivory tower, amongst papers and complex laboratory instruments. They say scientists should spend their lives picking away at obscure theories dreamt up by long-dead nerds, only to squirrel their research away in some academic thesis written in a strange language that nobody who speaks God’s English can understand. That person may be a scientist, but he certainly is not a great scientist.

The bookworm: Nobody does science by writing a bunch of dull papers; Who the heck cares about that stuff anyway?

There is another breed of researcher: Brave, Impulsive, Intuitive and unafraid of defying the consensus. This kind of scientist is more at home in the church or school-house than a dusty laboratory. He follows truth like a bloodhound follows the scent of a wetback. This sort of scientist thinks up ideas so great, they do not even need to be tested because everybody who listens with an open-mind just knows they are right. This guy doesn’t just publish papers: he writes best-selling books and movies that help people all under the world understand God’s creation. Now that is what I call a great scientist.

The true genius: He follows science wherever it leads, even if others are afraid.

So if you were deciding which of these two fellows to offer tenure to, which of these two fellows would you choose? The simpering coward or the bold truth-warrior? Funnily enough, Iowa State University just rejected one of the greatest scientists in the world - and the reason: Anti-Christian persecution.

Let me introduce Guillermo Gonzalez, one of the worlds greatest scientists and inventor of what one day will be shown to be the most important scientific discovery since Intelligent Design. Guillermo who is a fellow of the Discovery Institute and a close friend of Shelley The Republican.

This is one of the best and most important science books ever. Why is it that it is not compulsory for kids in school to read it? The answer is clear: Anti-Christian persecution.

Guillermo is credited as the discoverer of the “Privileged Planet” theory: The observation that it is incredibly unlikely that our planet, and it’s particular place in the universe could not have come about by sheer chance, and therefore the whole universe must have been designed by God. Why is it that this simple and obvious principle is regarded as controversial by the ultra-leftist whack-jobs at Iowa State University?

Guillermo Gonzales was guided by Jesus from the godless land of communist Cuba to teach Astronomy at ISU; Perhaps Jesus intended for him to become a martyr so that we can all learn a lesson?

The simple answer is that Professor Gonzales is yet another victim of the atheist conspiracy of hate that we Christians have to suffer every single day. Look at what Denys Oleary, one of the world’s most trusted investigative journalists has to say:

“It is well known that Hector Avalos, a religion prof who professes himself a secular humanist, and is faculty adviser to students who profess the same, has tried to stir up the faculty and community against Gonzalez via a petition signed by 120 faculty members - on account of Gonzalez’s personal interest in an intelligent design hypothesis as an explanation for his findings.”

Why would 120 fellow researchers gang up against one defenceless professor? Would it be because they are jealous that he has published a highly popular book which was turned into a box-office smash movie? Or is it because they are afraid that he might be on to something. O’leary adds:

“Now, materialism is shot to pieces anyway, and has been ever since quantum mechanics began to be understood. But hordes of tenured mediocrities still compel tax money from the public to defend their dissolving empire, and persecute anyone who threatens it.”

Denys Oleary: One of the world’s greatest science journalists. Why is it that the major publications avoid her work? This is another example of persecution against Christians.

These are sobering words indeed! If only all the scientists in the world writers shared O’leary’s grasp of quantum theory Guillermo Gonzales would have been awarded the tenure he deserves. It’s plain to see that ISU just could not stomach the idea of giving tenure to a scientist who has the courage to reinvent the very concept of science.

Yours in Christ,

Tristan J. Shuddery

URGENT PRAYER ALRERT Our friends at uncommon descent have put together an open letter to the board of ISU complaining about the unfair treatment that our dear Guillermo has received:

To: Gregory Geoffroy

President

Iowa State University

Dear Dr. Geoffroy,

Anyone familiar with the case of Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez suspects that he was not denied tenure at Iowa State for lack of academic excellence–he has nearly 70 peer-reviewed publications, including an article in Scientific American, and Nature and Science have run articles about his work–but because of his expressed view (expressed only OUTSIDE the classroom) that certain features of the universe can be considered as evidence of design. This is in fact a widely held view among scientists: for example, it is a well-established fact–established through many peer-reviewed scientific articles–that most of the basic physical constants of our universe, such as Planck’s constant, the speed of light, the charge and mass of the electron, and so on, had to have nearly the values that they do have or intelligent life would not have been possible anywhere in the universe. There are only two widely-held interpretations for this so-called “fine tuning.” One is that the fortuitous values of these constants are the result of design, the other is that there are many universes, with varying values for these constants, and that life arose in ours because the values here were favorable to the development of life. Neither view is strictly scientific, because both the alleged designer and the alleged other universes are in principle unobservable. There are quite a number of scientists who prefer the design explanation. Dr. Gonzalez may be in the minority, but it is a very sizable minority, and most members of this minority are free to express this point of view at their respective institutions without fear of academic punishment.

Dr. Gonzalez has in fact, through peer-reviewed publications, added significantly to the list of features in our universe which may suggest design. He has rarely, if ever, spoken publicly in support of the less widely-held view that certain features of biological evolution also suggest design, but apparently his association with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which does hold this view, was more than could be tolerated by some faculty members at ISU. His views were criticized in a letter drafted by a professor of religion, Hector Avalos, and signed by 120 ISU professors, and we suspect that this letter played an important role in the tenure decision.

Your decision to deny tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez, unless reversed, sends a clear message to the rest of the academic world that only some philosophical points of view are welcome at Iowa State University. Academic freedom is meaningless if it is limited to certain philosophies. Please reconsider your decision.

William Dembski,

Tristan Shuddery,

Michael Behe,

Billy Bob Neck,

Shelley Goodman,

Pastor Bucks,

Sam Johnson

11 comments

[Note - This article?is reposted?from Blogs For Brownback.? We're trying to get hold of the original author, sisyphus, and get proper permission, but sometimes you read something that smacks you upside the head so hard that your brains get knocked back into the place where they used to be before Madeline Murray O'Hare and the Dummy-Crats poisoned the air of God's righteousness with their secular humanism and sodomy.? I'm expecting the pews to be full on Sunday after y'all read this!]

What?s even worse than the debate raging in American schools about the teaching of the soulless doctrine of evolution, is the non-debate over an issue that rational Americans have foolishly conceded to the secular among us: the issue of Heliocentrism, or the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Now, it has to be granted that there may be some mathematical evidence going either way; mathematically speaking, Copernicus may be on ground nearly as firm as that of Tycho Brahe. Right-thinking people know the correct doctrine, however:

Heliocentrism is the view that the sun is at the center of the universe. It was proposed by some ancient Greeks,[1] and became the dominant view in the 1700s and 1800s. It was abandoned in the 20th century.

Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in covariant equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations

It seems clear that it may occasionally be convenient to assume that the calculations of Copernicus and Kepler were mathematically sound. However, for both moral and theological reasons, we should always bear in mind that the Earth does not move. If it moved, we would feel it moving. That?s called empiricism, the experience of the senses. Don?t take my word for it, or the evidence of your own senses, Copernicans. There?s also the Word of the Lord:

?He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.? (1 Chronicles 16:30)

?Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ?? (Psalm 93:1)

?Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.? (Psalm 104:5)

??who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast?? (Isaiah 45:18)

?The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.? (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

?Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.? (Joshua 10, 12-13)

Moreover, as Answers in Genesis points out,

?[S]omething well known to high-school physics students, but apparently not to bibliosceptics?that it?s valid to describe motion from any reference frame, although an inertial one usually makes the mathematics simpler.3 But there are many times when the Earth is a convenient reference frame; i.e. at some point we all use the geocentric model in one sense. For instance, a planetarium is a geocentric model. Calculation of rising, transiting, and setting of various celestial objects is calculated geocentrically. There are numerous other examples. Since modern astronomers often use an Earth-centred reference frame, it?s unfair and anti-scientific to criticise the Bible for doing the same.

The premier website for those wishing an absolute debunking of the Biblically unsound, empirically fraudulent, historically heretical doctrine of Heliocentrism is http://www.fixedearth.com/. The website contains numerous links to essays and analyses proving that the embrace of Copernicus is almost as foolish as the embrace of Darwinism. To quote from just one of these astounding essays:

Copernicanism, in short, is a concept that is protected in a bunker under a 50 foot thick ceiling of solid ?scientific? concrete. It is meant to be impregnable. It is a concept that has become ensconced in men?s minds as the indestructible cornerstone of enlightened modern man?s knowledge. Virtually all people everywhere have been taught to believe?and do believe?that this concept is based on objective science and dispassionate secular reasoning, now long since freed from religious superstitions based on the Bible.

Indeed, it was this Copernican heliocentricity concept that gradually broke the back of Bible credibility as the source of Absolute Truth in Christendom. Once the Copernican Revolution had conquered the physical sciences of Astronomy and Physics and put down deep roots in Universities and lower schools everywhere, it was only a matter of time until the Biological sciences launched the Darwinian Revolution.

This embrace of Darwinism then quite predictably emboldened increasingly secular-minded mankind to further reject Biblical Absolutism and replace its teachings with yet more new ?truths? in areas of learning having to do with economics and government. Thus was unsuccessful and floundering Marxism given new life. Marx openly tried to dedicate his own books to Darwin, exulting: ?You have given me the basis for my system?. Thus, the ?Social Science? disciplines were born and began to make their contributions to the destruction of Bible credibility?

Darwin, of course, only popularized evolutionism with his book in 1859, giving it a supposed mechanism thru natural selection and mutations, both since demonstrated to be utter nonsense. The actual roots of the evolutionary concept can be traced back to antiquity?as indeed can the roots of Copernican heliocentricism. Certainly the neo-heliocentrists, i.e., the early Copernicans such as Kepler were evolutionists. Galileo, like Kepler his friend, a neo-heliocentrist, was probably an evolutionist. Newton gave Copernicanism its biggest boost with his book in 1687, but I?ve seen no overt evidence that he was an evolutionist. (If you know of such evidence, I?d like to see it?.)

Thanks, however, to Newton?s invented math and the excesses of his gravitational hypotheses (HERE), Copernicanism dug in its heels in the universities in the 1700?s, and by the last quarter of that century had produced a large crop of hard core heliocentrists, not a few of whom were advocating ape-man theories (amongst them, Darwin?s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, Voltaire?s disciples in France, etc.). This was the age of ?The Enlightenment? which produced Thomas Paine, the celebrated pamphleteer of the American Revolution, whom George Washington referred to as ?that filthy little atheist?. Thomas Jefferson?s and Ben Franklin?s Deism was commonplace in Europe as well as amongst the rebellious American colonies. During the French Revolution of the 1790?s the Bible was actually outlawed.

These developments were sixty to a hundred years and more before Darwin, but the damage to Bible credibility done by the Copernican Revolution by that time was making an ever-widening open door for Evolutionism to take root. By 1830?even before Darwin (with his Degree in Theology, not Biology) went to the Galapagos Islands and began to formulate his mythology, Charles Lyell (with his degree in Law, not Geology) had advanced his idea of a ?geologic column? with great ages attached to alleged descending layers of the earth. Though such a column has never, ever been confirmed, and though there are mountainous examples of the theoretically old layers being on top of the supposedly more recent ones, and though the Cambrian layer shows a sudden profusion of highly developed life forms with no antecedents, Darwin picked up on Lyell?s fantasy and it is still taught as a proof of an ancient earth and macro-evolutionism.

If that, alone, isn?t enough to convince you of the folly of embracing a soulless, atheistic pseudoscience like Heliocentrism, perhaps this will soften your stony head:

God, thru His Word, teaches a non-moving and immovable earth just as surely as he teaches a six-day Creation 6000 years ago and a universal Flood some 1600 years later. All attempts to twist and even boldly reverse geocentric Scriptures by claiming that God just used a ?language of appearance? are extremely reckless for the Christian devoted to the inerrancy of Scripture. After all, the same argument has been employed with near devastating effect upon the Creationist Movement by Theistic Evolutionists, has it not?

Attacking vulnerable Copernicanism is a strategy that outflanks the entire secular science establishment (overrunning the Theistic Evolutionist?s position in the process!)

In addition to all that, being men and women of sound mind (II Tim. 1:7), Creationists should be eager to learn that:

1) No one?not Copernicus, not Kepler, not Galileo, not Newton, not Einstein?absolutely no one has proven the earth to be moving.

2) The earth moves only thru abstract, abstruse, and esoteric mathematics invented to make it move.

3) Over 200 truly scientific experiments using real mathematics have shown no earth movement, and these had the science establishment in a panic from the 1880?s until Einstein came to the rescue in 1905 with his ?relativity? hypothesis.

4) Relativity is pure claptrap and there isn?t a person reading this who can?t know that fact.

5) Foucault?s Pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, and geostationary satellites do not prove a moving earth.

6) Anyone can see that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments?especially the light fringe results?prove a stationary earth; and other facts about eclipses, satellite re-positionings, alleged blinding earth speeds, gravitational hooey, etc., add to the proof. Moreover, the Big Bang Baloney, the growing awareness of the effect of Dark Matter on galactic speeds, parallax factors (HERE) which shrink the cosmos, the evidence for speed-of-light retardation, the behavior of reflections and their capabilities for producing phenomena regarding size and depth, etc., all combine to corroborate the certitude of a greatly sanforized universe (one no more than one light day thick: Start HERE), a universe put in diurnal rotation around the spiritual and physical center of God?s Creation, just exactly as it appears to be day in and day out.

7) The Bible not only flatly states scores of times (HERE) and in several ways (HERE) that the earth does not move, it actually has a built-in geocentric assumption?sun rise, sun set?from beginning to end. (One scholar, a geocentrist and mathematician, is cataloguing some 2000 (!) of these.)

In the beginning, the Bible makes clear, the earth was the center of our ?solar? system, with no sun for it to go around until the 4th day of creation (Gen.1:14-19; HERE). At the End we read of a New Earth (HERE) replacing in the same location this old one (Rev. 20:11; 21:1,2). This New Earth which occupies the same location in the cosmos as the old one which has ?fled away? is the place where God the Father and Jesus will dwell with the redeemed forever (Rev. 21:3).

Given that unpreached but clear teaching, do you think that God the Father and Jesus the Son will eternally be somewhere out on the edge of Their NEW Universe in the boonies?or at the center?

If you ask me, that settles the question right there. I support the Bible, and I don?t want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school. I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism. I don?t want my tax dollars going to finance this kind of false science. It?s complete rot, and I hope that those of us who come to realize this can ultimately prevail against its propogation amongst OUR children with the money from OUR salaries.

I can?t wait to hear from the moonbats and the Darwinists and the other rubes on this one, though. Go on, witch doctors. Preach to me how the planet hurtles through the ether, Scriptural and physical evidence to the contrary! Your false doctrines will be cast down on the day when America rediscovers its Christian roots. That is a promise.

24 comments

Friends,

In my long years as a Republican campaigner and a science educator I’ve learnt that sometimes the best way to communicate a very difficult issue is with a touch of humor. One master communicator is the Discovery Institute fellow and math genius, William Dembski, who also provided the voices for this subtle and effective explaination of what went wrong in 2005’s dover trial.

Isnt that just great? Anybody who watches this will understand how evolutionists pervert America’s leagal system and how Judge Jones is a corrupt puppet of the evil ACLU.

UPDATE: I forgot to add the link. Just click on the picture to view this great flash.

Yours in Christ,

Tristan J. Shuddery

7 comments

You may have noticed that March of this year was particularly hot. As a matter of fact, I understand that it was the hottest March since the beginning of the last century. All of the trees were fully leafed oout and legions of bugs and snakes were crawling around during a time in Arkansas when, on a normal year, we might see a snowflake or two.

This should come as no surprise to any reasonable person. As you know, Daylight Saving Time started almost a month early this year. You would think that memebers of Congress would have considered the warming effect that an extra hour of daylight would have on our climate. Or did they?

perhaps this is another plot by a liberal Congress to make us believe that global warming is a real threat. perhaps next time there should be serious studies performed before Congress passes laws with such far-reaching effects.

Connie M. Meskimen, Hot Springs, AR

16 comments

.
Dear Friends

The pseudo science of “stem cell research” demands an enormous amount of human “material”, namely eggs. These pre-born babies will then be killed and cut up in little pieces for sick experiments that are not useful in any way other than to fill the pockets of scientists.

The process of the “egg harvesting” is extremely painful and harmful to the young women. Dubious companies place ads in major newspapers offering “$50 for each harvested egg, the procedure only takes minutes and is completely painless”. This is a dirty filthy lie of course. There are massive side effects. The operation is usually very painful and in many cases the young woman will be unable to bear a child.

Why are we letting this happen?

“The practice of harvesting parts of the human body in order to do experiments reminds me of what the German scientists did with young Jewish women in the concentration camps.”, said Professor Steve Klyne from the Medical University of South Carolina.

Look at this wonderful baby-boy! He might solve the problems of the future, who knows, maybe he’ll be a 2nd Jesus! Evil scientists will to cut him up for sick experiments! When did science become so evil?

It makes me mad as hell when human life, God’s own creation, is destroyed for profit and in the same time woman are getting abused and injured and lied to.

This has to stop. I urge you to get more information about this issue on proLifeBlogs and other credible places.

Thanks for reading,
Shelley Goodman

31 comments

Dear Readers,

we are currently in the process of moving the website to more reliable, faster and more secure Windows Vista webhosting.
There might be temporary service interruptions withing the next 48 hours.

Kind regards,
The STR crew

*************************
Update: The transfer is complete!
Enjoy the new and faster hosting!
*************************
.

65 comments