STR † THE FREEDOM BLOG

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

Friends, I want to thank each and every one of the STR Prayer team who asked God to save our dear friend Kent Hovind from the evil of the liberal dominated courts who wish to prevent him from spreading the gospel; unfortunately our prayers came too late to save dear Kent who will soon begin an unprecedented and entirely unfair ten year prison sentence. Kent’s only been sentenced for a day or so, and already we can see the liberal attack-dogs congratulating themselves for bringing this great man down. They are already plotting who their next victim will be… could it be another patriot like Pat Robertson? Could it be Shelley, me or even you? Perhaps they will target your children because they remember to say their prayers? Who knows what drives the liberal mind to such extraordinary vengeance.

Kent and his wife lived a life of humble poverty, dedicated to following Jesus’ example. Kent and Jo never drew a salary for their good work, and lived at the charity of the Creation Science Evangelism group. Why are these poor preachers being persecuted for tax evasion?

So the activist liberal judge says that Pastor Hovind owes the US Government a great deal of money - but did they count all the good he had done? Did they count the souls he helped save, and the kids he educated? Every single child who passes through Dinosaur Adventure Land gets to learn about how neo-Darwinism is a lie - would they have learnt that important message had Kent not done his best? Did they count the fact that he works for Jesus, the person who founded the USA, a higher authority than even the President? I put it to you that it is not Kent who owes the IRS, but the US government who owes Kent. But hold on a minute - didn’t the Bible say that holy people would be tested? Kent is yet another martyr for Jesus, willing to go to prison to stand up for what he thinks is right. I just know that God has a plan for him, and if that means he has to do ten years in a prison I am sure that Kent will face up to that plan with his usual dignity and moral courage. Heck, he might even get to teach some of his fellow prisoners about the exciting science of Intelligent Design - perhaps that is what God wants?

A tearful Hovind had hoped to avoid prison, telling the court, “If it’s just money the IRS wants, there are thousands of people out there who will help pay the money they want so I can go back out there and preach”. How can an American court doubt the word of a true Christian? Do they not know that our legal system is based on Christianity?

I’m delighted to announce, that this month’s charity will be the “Save Kent Hovind Fund”, we are going to get together and help pay off his tax bill. The sooner we get this great man out of jail, the sooner America will hear him preach the Gospel again. In the meantime, we would all draw courage from the wise words of Romans 8:31-39, words which I know will be comforting our dear friend at this very moment.

Finally, we at STR.com would like to an ounce a new petition which will be starting next week. We are going to ask for an official presidential pardon for Kent Hovind. Please add your prayers and other words of support for Kent below.

Yours in Christ,

Tristan J. Shuddery

40 comments

While I was reading to my daughter from Percival Davis’ excellent ?Of Pandas and People? I learnt something about the differences between the way Neo-Darwinists an proponents of ID think. I think the Darwinists are only interested in looking at disconnected details: They fail to see the big-picture and that is why they fail to spot the handiwork of the Intelligent Designer even though the evidence is staring them in the face: Let me give you an example.

This is probably the best biology text-book ever written. It totally debunks the myth of evolution.

The Tasmanian Wolf looks remarkably like the wolf you and I know of. It?s about the same size, has a similar diet and even has the same kind of fur , jaw structure, teeth and behavior. Anybody can see that these two animals are examples of the same kind of creature. But if you ask an evolutionist where this creature might be placed on the ?tree of life?, they would place these two very similar creatures about as far from each other as could be and yet still both be considered mammals. That?s sort of like somebody from Kentucky claiming that their next door neighbour lives in New Jersy!

The Tasmanian Wolf, this creature is now extinct. We do not know why extinction happens - most probably this is all part of God’s plan.

These taxonomical oddities are not an isolated feature: Darwin’s ?Tree of Life? abounds with anomalous classifications: Few high-schools mention that evolutionists regard all birds as a sub-class of reptiles. That is to say if one branch of the tree represents every living and extinct reptile, every known species of bird would be represented by a sub-branch of that reptile branch. Next time you hear an iguana say ?Polly Want a Cracker?, tell me, but until then I propose that this classification makes no sense at all!

Oh no! We are being attacked by a DINOSAUR… RUN! Oh wait - have the neo-darwinists been watching too much Jurassic-park?

Wouldn?t it make more sense if we devised a more functional taxonomy; one where very similar kinds of animal were grouped together? One based on the sensible principles and proven science of Intelligent Design?

One might wonder why this idea has not occurred to the proponents of neo-darwinism? Actually it has, but they dismiss it because of a few small details here and there. One such difference between the Tasmanian and American wolf is it?s reproductive strategy: The Tasmanian wolves are ?marsupial?, and other wolves are ?placental? like our species. Evolutionists say that these are two very different branches of evolution, one which has retained primative DNA, the other has developed more modern features. Because of this one single difference, these two wolves are consigned to different ends of evolution?s spectrum.

The American Grey Wolf - a more advanced version of the same design that gave us the marsupial wolf.

Why should reproductive strategy be valued above all other differences and similarities? It makes no sense at all given that everything else about the two wolf species is so similar. Surely science should recognise similarities as well as differences?

Wouldn?t it make more sense to see this in the context of Intelligent design? It?s possible that the designer made two different revisions of the same basic design. This is something that human designers do all the time, and it seems perfectly normal to us. What is the probability that these two creatures ?evolved? to look the same: According to evolution, change happens by random mutation. An evolutionist might therefore expect one kind of wolf to turn blue, and the other one to grow antlers.

Fortunately that is not the case. We are left with two varieties of wolf, one version placental, the other version marsupial. We can only guess at what the objectives of the designer were, but I personally suspect that these creatures are two iterations of a design that eventually left us with the most perfect wolf-like form: The modern domesticated dog.

The most perfect form of canine: The modern dog.

So what can we learn from these wolves? I suggest that in science (as in all walks of life), sometimes scrutiny of the details alone can lead to false conclusions. Sometimes the only sensible, common sense approach is to look at the big picture: And once we step back and appreciate the many wonders of creation the Designer?s signature is self-evident.

Helena

21 comments

Once again, we are in debt to the world’s best I.D. web-site, OverwhelmingEvidence.com. Today’s article is re-published by kind permission of OE’s guest blogger Henrietta Lacks. You can find the original version of this article, back at OE.com

OverwhelmingEvidence.com is the best site for serious discussion of the exciting science of Intelligent Design. This is the ID site that anybody can contribute to, just register and you can post your own articles. Spread the good news about God’s creation today!

I agree with the OverwhelmingEvidence.com blogger Helena Blavatsky who suggested that the Darwinists’ weak-spot is their addiction to scientific-naturalism, otherwise known as the ?materialist assumption? - the nihilistic conjecture that the only things worth thinking about are the mundane. I concur that we have to show the flaws in materialism if we are to engage the scientific community and show the folly of evolutionary dogma, but what shall we replace it with?

Disgusting paganist rock-musician “madona” claims to be a “material girl”, but what does this mean? Apparantly causing as much insult as possible to God-fearing Christians, parading around in her under-garments and taking the Lord’s name in vain. If scientists understood what materialism was really about, would they be so proud of it?

If we merely knock-down the materialistic assumptions on which Darwin’s theories are constructed, might something even worse rise to fill it’s place? Not if we take responsibility and suggest an alternative to the flawed concepts of materialism. Fortunately such a concept exists, and it is one with an excellent philosophical pedigree. But first, let me turn my attention to the failings of materialism:

Just look at the Discovery Institutes’s definition of materialism:

?Cultural materialism means living as if there were no God or moral absolutes, and all that matters is matter. Philosophical materialism means to argue that there is no God to establish any moral absolutes, and matter is all there is. The former world-view finds its justification in the latter. Actually, in the modern world, philosophical materialists act as the secular priesthood of a lifestyle based on hedonism and moral relativism. ? ( Source: Under God or Under Darwin? DI )

These are sobering words from one of the worlds most respected research organizations. Why then should we allow materialism to dominate our culture?

Scientific researcher Micheal Behe is one of the worlds most cited biologists. He is foremost amongst scientific researchers who demand that we reject the out-dated dogma of materialism.

Behe establishes that materialists limit themselves; that is, since most of us are forced by society to be obligatory materialists, both theists and atheists are restricted in their beliefs. Behe states that this restricts the sciences, forcing them to accept the theory of evolution as universal fact, even if it does not apply everywhere. This results in the same problem that the geocentric model, Newtonian physics, or extreme Puritanism posed in their time: arrogance about their theory, proponents do not notice that evolutionary proofs require us first to accept materialism ? they are guilty of blatant circular reasoning.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could break out of the prison of materialism when common-sense requires it? For example, when tackling scientific problems (such as the origin of species) which do not lend themselves well to materialistic analysis, we can ask ourselves if a non-materialistic solution makes more sense? Fortunately such a philosophy exists, and it is every bit superior to materialism: It’s proponents call it ?Theistic Realism?

According to Philip E. Johnson ,the founder of the Theistic Realism school, true knowledge must start with the acknowledgment of an intelligent designer as creator; This is self-evident from the unifying, ordered characteristics of the universe. Theistic Realism directly challenges materialism’s presumption that the intelligent designer cannot exist.

According to Johnson:

?Naturalistic evolutionary theory, as part of the grand metaphysical story of science, says that creation was by impersonal and unintelligent forces. The opposition between the [common-sense] and naturalistic stories is fundamental, and neither side can compromise over it. To compromise is to surrender.?

?.[T]here is absolutely no mystery about why living organisms appear to be the products of intelligent creation, and why scientific naturalists have to work so hard to keep themselves from perceiving the obvious. The reason living things give that appearance is that they actually are what they appear to be, and this fact is evident to all who do not cloud their minds with naturalistic philosophy or some comparable drug.?

What can I say other than it is all undeniable common-sense. When an evolutionist claims that Intelligent Design is not science because it does not follow the normal rules of science (materialism), I suggest that you respond that it is the evolutionist’s concept of science which has failed to evolve past it’s two-hundred year old assumptions.

Point them to Philip Johnson’s matchless ?Darwin on Trial?, and if they have a shred of objectivity, I am sure they will be convinced.

7 comments

Once again, I would like to present another informative article from OverwhelmingEvidence.com, the world’s leading web-site dedicated to the important scientific FACT of intelligent design.

The religious doctrine of Evolution has held sway over much of science for almost 200 years, but could this flawed empire be on the verge of collapsing? I personally think so, and suggest that if we choose our targets well we may see the empire of evolution self-destruct within our own lifetimes.

Will ID destroy the junk-science of evolution? That’s like asking if David will slay Goliath. After a great deal of prayer and contemplation, Christian scientists have determined that ID is the TRUTH. God would not have revealed this science to us if he did not intend us to be victorious.

Have you noticed any time you debate the Evolution controversy with one of it?s fundamentalists, they quickly change the subject? They might try to divert you with some new finding that apparently confirms one of Darwin?s theories? Or perhaps it?s because they have been having nightmares that sooner or later, a brave young scientist may have already found the source of those nightmares which foretell of the end of the empire of Evolution.

Despite this and some very minor setbacks we are certainly winning. The ACLU and friends may like to boast about their stolen victory in Dover, but the simple fact is we are already winning in the only court that counts: The American People.

But is that enough? I personally do not think so. There will always be a fundamentalist group who have blinded themselves to the myriad of holes in the argument for Evolution. Intelligent Design may be the only alternative, but these fundamentalists cannot accept ID because their entire belief system makes them biased against it.

To achieve ultimate victory I believe we need to challenge the core beliefs of the neo-Darwinists. Once the foundations of their belief-system is shattered down will come the rest of their crumbling empire. Of course, I am talking about Materialism.

When we say “Feet of Clay” we mean that it looks great, but it has unstable foundations. Just like Evolution.

Materialist philosophy states that all that exists is ?matter?. They allow for nothing else. Any explanation that suggests the existence of an Intelligent Agent who designed all the life on earth must be dismissed out of hand because their framework cannot account for a creator which cannot be measured by the crude intellectual tools of reductionism and the contrivances of a science lab.

Materialism is a nihilistic argument: It simply asserts what cannot happen but without offering any proof of this assertion. For any observable phenomena a materialist will only posit an explanation that consists exclusively of interactions of mundane stuff.

Why is this so wrong? An intelligent designer might not be made of the same ?material? as you and me, and may not be detectable through conventional scientific techniques: A materialist would therefore assume that this designer does not exist without even stopping to think.

And that is the core of the problem. The reason for rejecting non-materialistic explanations of observed phenomena is just a lack of consideration. And since they have assumed the non-existence of anything other than the strictly material then can they truly say they have ruled out the existence of the Intelligent Designer? Of course not.

So when is it appropriate to consider a non-materialistic explanation for observable phenomena? The obvious answer is the case when the orthodox scientific explanation cannot provide a common-sense explanation: For example if the generally accepted theory contains a number of obvious gaps. If a purely materialistic theory fails the common-sense test, then perhaps it is smart to consider a non-materialistic alternative? Dare I even suggest a miraculous alternative? And why shouldn’t we - no science has disproved the existence of miracles.

Who is the intelligent designer? We cannot say, however nothing in ID theory contradicts the true story of the creation of the Earth in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 - therefore it is a better quality of science than orthodox theories..

I think it?s time to strike at this materialist assumption: There is growing evidence to show that materialism is the ?Feet of Clay? upon which the junk-science of Evolution has been built. All we have to do is highlight the hundreds of experiments that show that a big-picture, common-sense approach to science demands a rejection of materialism.

If we can show that materialism leads to closed-minded science, then we can also show that any theory is built on these feet of clay must also be unsound.

13 comments

Most scientists are starting to realize that the Victorian English doctrine of “Evolution” is well-past it’s use-by date. Every day, thanks to sites like this, scientists are starting to discover that Intelligent Design is the only solution to all of the gaps in evolutionary theory. Scientists are starting to realize that the very concepts upon which the “science” of evolution is based just do not make sense:

For example, consider the phrase “Survival of the fittest”. Die-hard evolutionists propose that this is the “moral force” behind the whole of evolution. But what does it actually mean? Well we all know what “survive means” - it means not becoming extinct, and having the most offspring. If you ask a Darwinist to define “fittest”, you may be surprised to hear exactly the same definition: it means not becoming extinct, and having the most offspring. Could Darwinists have been so silly to have based their entire field of study on a glaringly obvious tautology?

The phrase “survival of the fittest” was coined by the British atheist Herbert Spencer. He is widely held to be the founder of “Social Darwinism”, an evil political force which proposes to undermine the teachings of Jesus.

What if “Survival of the fittest” really were the “engine” that drives life on? Do we really live in a selfish world where only the most ruthless competitors stand a chance of survival? Fortunately this is not the case. When Darwin originally wrote his “Origin of Species” he was completely unaware of the many forms of symbiosis, co-operation and even generosity in the animal kingdom. The only way a Darwinist can continue to believe in this core dogma is by closing his eyes to the last hundred years of biological research.

One of the daily riots that plague the once-great city of Paris, France. A deadly free-for-all in which drug-crazed french-men brawl and try to sodomize each other. Is this what proponents of “Survival of the Fittest” really want?

Unlike Evolutionists, we Proponents of ID do not pretend that we have all the answers. We only wish to humbly point out that scientists who refuse to accept Intelligent Design may be wasting time and risking lives. For example, it is widely acknowledged amongst AIDS researchers that the reason why the virus is so hard to fight is because it “evolves”. Millions of dollars are being spent on researching how this life-form evolves and where has it got us? Nobody has ever observed an AIDS virus in the act of “evolution”, it’s just dogma.

Perhaps the reason for failure of conventional evolutionary research has less to do with “bad luck” or “lack of budget”, but a fundamentally wrong approach. Is it not possible that life cannot evolve in the way that Darwinists think? Evidence suggests that it only adapts in precisely the way predicted by the theory of Intelligent Design?

The deadly AIDS virus. Could it be a warning from the Designer of the Universe to stop believing in the evil of Evolution, and instead study Intelligent Design?

There is much work still to do, but as yet mainstream science has not yet managed to argue away this new science. I think this may be proof that our ideas are valid. All we need to do in order to win this debate is to keep making clear arguments that show the inherent contradictions and absurdities of Darwinism. I believe that ID provides exactly the scientific framework to help simplify the complex problems that continue to puzzle mankind. I personally predict that one or more of the bigger commercial research organisations will come over to our side of the debate within a matter of months: Why wouldn’t they accept the truth when there is so much of their own money at stake!

Thanks to our sister-blog “Overwhelming Evidence” for permission to re-publish this article.

Tristan J. Shuddery

18 comments

Friends,

if Darwin’s “natural selection” were the driving force of life (which of course it isn’t) you could not morally encourage another person to keep on living after a set-back. We could not love our families above all things, and we could not care for our elderly and sick. It would be impossible to have any kind of morality, kindness and generosity. Compassion would be impossibe. The implications are anarchy and hedonism, war and spiritual death.

A homosexual cheetah kills an antelope. This image from a well known liberal photographic collection shows the “true” meaning of “natural selection”, liberals hope that darwinism will help them soft-sell the homosexual agenda.

The simple fact is that there is no such thing as “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest”. Only God decides who lives or dies, and his criteria is simple: The law of the Bible.

Fortunately we live in a divinely ordered world, and one in which the neo-darwinist’s lunatic fantasies are blatantly false. One need only look at the world to see that it has been blessed by Jesus, and those who pray and give their money to conservative chartities will continue to be blessed. But it seems that some so-called “scientists” still cling on to their darwinistic dogmas long after their cherished theories have been rejected by the majority of Americans.

Consider this very typical article from the “Google Group” called talk.origins. I promise you we did not make this up, however one glance at “talk.origins” will show that this is only the tip of the iceberg of lunacy. When atheists resort to such desperate arguments can we be in any doubt that they know their theories are as dead as Mr Darwin?

From: I Hate Jesus
Subj: I have proved Evolution

Absolutely, definitively, and without question. My proof is
irrefutable. But I’m not going to tell you what it is until I have
written it all up in a paper, which could take, oooh, years. I have a
video, too, that proves it all conclusively, but you can’t see it, oh
no, because you’re not worthy. Cites? You want cites? I’ve got lots of
cites, to literally millions of textbooks, … and they’re mine, I tell
you, all mine. But if you like, I will post a post full of links to all
my old posts, and I’m sure that will convince you. By the way, did you
know Dembski is a heterosexual-adherent? Oh, yes. It’s all about
decisions, you see, and if any of you decide to indulge in free
behaviour and argue with me I will be forced to be extremely merciful,
and ignore you completely. Or I might swear at you a lot, and call you
fascist cheerleaders. Science, you say? I know all the science I need
to know, because I was in a hospital once, and that makes me an expert
on Everything. Next thing you know you’ll be trying to tell me
contraception can prevent pregnancy. I know what you are all up to …
it’s a conspiracy, but that’s all right. It makes me extremely happy to
know that you all think I’m wrong, because if you agreed me that would
prove me wrong, but you don’t, so that proves I’m right. That’s
invulnerable logic, that is. I’ve told you, don’t argue, or I’ll get
merciful again. You wouldn’t like me when I’m merciful. Why? Because I
said so. Isn’t that good enough for you? WOULD YOU BELIEVE ME IF I
SHOUTED? I’m going to have my own stalker, you know, who follows me
round accusing me of being nice to Greeks. Yeah, but you can’t get me.
I know what God equals, guv. (George … don’t do that). And Hitler
liked dogs, you know. Significant, eh? I told ‘em, I did, millennium
hand and shrimp. Stalin’s wife committed suicide, what do you think of
that, then? Do you think I can’t tell what you’re all up to, running
about telling hawks from handsaws?

These fragments I have shored against my ruins. And somebody get these
eels out of here.

What nonsense! Is this what passes for evidence amongst scientists? Why do most scientists put such faith in this kind of “evidence”? Next time you see somebody who claims to believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution remind them that their theories are the product of madness wheras the FACTS of Intelligent Design are based on the eternal words of God and his greatest gift to mankind: The Holy Bible.

Yours in Christ,

Tristan J. Shuddery

23 comments

Liberal scientists claim that stem cells might one day cure all manner of diseases, however the latest scientific discoveries indicate that stem-cells are actually the cause of the deadliest disease: Cancer.

Would you really allow a doctor to try to cure you with a stem-cell which was once a pre-born infant and might make you worse. Cancer is God’s way of saying “Do not meddle with MY stem cells”.

An unborn infant. Why is it that liberals think she should have less rights than you or me? Cancer is god’s revenge on people who murder his children in order to heal themselves. The only reliable cure for cancer is prayer.

And the worst part of it must be, if you accept the dead-baby-parts into your body, after you die of the cancer it gives you, you go straight to hell and burn for eternity.

Liberalism just isn’t the practical option!

See also:

• Congress overlook stem-cell fraud and futility.
• Another Stem-cell fast one
• Stem Cell Smoke and Mirrors

Yours in Christ,

Tristan J. Shuddery

17 comments