Jennifer Roback Morse on Obama’s rejection of traditional marriage

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

A new podcast from Issues, Etc. featuring the magnificent Jennifer Roback Morse.

The MP3 file is here.

The first topic is Obama’s refusal to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act. A lot of people made a mistake when they voted for Obama in 2008. Although  he claimed to be a Christian and said that he believed in traditional marriage. Newsflash! Obama is a radical anti-Christian leftist who is deep in the pocket of the anti-marriage left. Of course he is opposed to traditional marriage! The lesson for 2012 is that Christians need to never believe what politicians say when they are trying to get elected – look at their record and see what they’ve done.

The second myth she punctures is that a secular left government is OK with Christian parents teaching children about Biblical morality. It’s not just that they would want to indoctrinate children to reject Biblical morality. It’s not just that they want to monitor what children say to make sure they don’t express any Biblical moral views in public. Its that they actually think that Christian parents should not be allowed to teach children in their care about Biblical moral views. You don’t own your children – the state owns them. The state decides what your children will believe.

BONUS:

Here’s a new podcast on The New York Times and “modern love”.

Stephen C. Meyer in FOUR John Ankerberg online videos

From Evolution News. (H/T Stephen C. Meyer)

Excerpt:

In four television episodes of the John Ankerberg Show broadcast across the US and over 200 nations worldwide, Dr. John Ankerberg interviewed Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, author of the groundbreaking book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. The series will begin broadcasting on April 3 at 5:30pm EDT on the Daystar Network and on April 10 at 9:30pm EDT on the INSP Network.

In the interviews Dr. Meyer explains how even Charles Darwin, in his book The Origin of Species, admitted he did not know how the first cell came into being, or how life came to be.

Scientists in Darwin’s day thought the cell was a simple glob of plasm, but today we have discovered that the cell is an almost unimaginably complex system of molecular machines and rich in digital code.

Where did this high-tech in low life come from? Ankerberg and Meyer explore the mystery surrounding this question, which Meyer calls the DNA enigma. Click on the links below to watch full episodes of the show online!

  • Week 1: Every person’s body consists of over a trillion cells. Almost every one of these cells includes a DNA molecule. What is DNA? Why is it so special? What does it do? Where did the digital code embedded in DNA originate? Why does the specified information in DNA point to a designing intelligence?
  • Week 2: As scientific technology has progressed, scientists have realized the cell is more and more complex. According to Microsoft’s Bill Gates, the DNA within each cell is far more complex than any computer software ever created. Where did the coded information within DNA come from? What naturalistic theories have been proposed? What is the possibility of the precise genetic information in DNA evolving by chance?
  • Week 3: In addition to chance, scientists have offered other answers to the origin of the precise genetic information found in DNA. Why is it that natural selection, self-organizing natural laws, or some combination of these with chance cannot explain where the information originated? We’ll also see why DNA exhibits signs of a designing intelligence.
  • Week 4: What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design (ID)? Is ID true science or just religion masquerading as science? We’ll also answer the objections to ID such as, “Is ID just an argument from ignorance?” (“We don’t know what the naturalistic causes are right now for the origin of life.”) We’ll also see why ID is based on scientific reasoning but may have larger religious implications.

And Meyer is not making this up. This is the state of science today.

From Scientific American.

Excerpt:

As recently as the middle of the 20th century, many scientists thought that the first organisms were made of self-replicating proteins. After Francis Crick and James Watson showed that DNA is the basis for genetic transmission in the 1950s, many researchers began to favor nucleic acids over proteins as the ur-molecules. But there was a major hitch in this scenario. DNA can make neither proteins nor copies of itself without the help of catalytic proteins called enzymes. This fact turned the origin of life into a classic chicken-or-egg puzzle: Which came first, proteins or DNA?

RNA, DNA’s helpmate, remains the most popular answer to this conundrum, just as it was when I wrote “In the Beginning…” Certain forms of RNA can act as their own enzymes, snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together again. If RNA could act as an enzyme, then it might be able to replicate itself without help from proteins. RNA could serve as gene and catalyst, egg and chicken.

But the “RNA-world” hypothesis remains problematic. RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize under the best of circumstances, in a laboratory, let alone under plausible prebiotic conditions. Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of chemical coaxing from the scientist. Overbye notes that “even if RNA did appear naturally, the odds that it would happen in the right sequence to drive Darwinian evolution seem small.”

The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out—literally—speculation. The most startling revelation in Overbye’s article is that scientists have resuscitated a proposal once floated by Crick. Dissatisfied with conventional theories of life’s beginning, Crick conjectured that aliens came to Earth in a spaceship and planted the seeds of life here billions of years ago. This notion is called directed panspermia. In less dramatic versions of panspermia, microbes arrived on our planet via asteroids, comets or meteorites, or drifted down like confetti.

John Horgan is not a Christian, nor even a theist. The origin of life is not explainable on the basis on unintelligent causes. But it is perfectly explainable as the result of intelligent causes. Just like the sequence of letters arranged in this blog post to have meaning are best explained as the result of an intelligence.

Canadians brace themselves for a federal election

Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Prime Minister Stephen Harper

This just in! The Conservatives are going to take a shot at winning a majority.

Excerpt:

Canadians may face their fourth federal election in seven years as early as May, after opposition parties said they wouldn’t back Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s fiscal plan.

Leaders of all three opposition parties said that C$7.6 billion ($7.7 billion) in new measures announced yesterday by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty weren’t enough to warrant their support. Harper will face a Liberal motion of non-confidence on March 25.

Opposition lawmakers are seeking to benefit from what they say have been ethics violations by Harper’s administration, including accusations by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff that former Harper aide Bruce Carson was peddling influence with companies seeking state contracts, as well as charges that ministers have misled Parliament. Harper has said he doesn’t want an election that could undermine the country’s recovery.

“The opposition parties are going to talk about contempt of Parliament and ethics” to weaken the government’s position, said Robert Drummond, a political scientist at York University in Toronto. The Conservatives “are going to want to talk about their economic record.”

I don’t know why the opposition parties would focus on ethics – according to the latest poll, the Conservatives have them beat solidly on ethics.

Excerpt:

In the poll, Canadians were given two choices for what they think is the most important issue in the election.

Sixty-three per cent said that “electing a party and leader that will provide honest, open and trustworthy government” is more important.

By comparison, 37% believe that “electing a party and leader that will make sure that our economic recovery continues” is more important.

Those findings, on their surface, should be good news for the Liberals. But in an ironic twist, the very issue the Liberals are trumpeting could backfire on them in a campaign.

Here’s why:

• 28% of Canadians believe the Conservatives, if re-elected, would do the best job of “providing honest, open and trustworthy government.”

• 22% believe the NDP would do the best job of this.

• Just 15% say the Liberals would be best at providing honest, open and trustworthy government.

And more:

When it comes to the party that can do the best job at “making sure our economic recovery continues,” 37% chose the Tories, while significantly fewer believe the Liberals (20%), NDP (14%) or Bloc (6%) are best positioned to do this.

Nearly one-quarter (23%) don’t believe any of these parties would do the best job at this.

Thinking about which party would “keep taxes under control,” 36% believe the Conservatives are best able to do this, while fewer believe the Liberals (17%), NDP (16%) or Bloc (6%) are best positioned to do this. Twenty-five per cent think that some other party would do a better job with this.

One in three (33%) believe the Conservatives would do the best job at “spending taxpayers money wisely,” while others believe the NDP (18%), Liberals (16%) or Bloc (6%) would do the best job of this. Another 27% don’t believe any of these parties would do the best job at spending taxpayers money wisely.

The Conservatives currently have 143 seats, with 155 needed for a majority. The latest poll puts them just shy of a majority.

UPDATE: An even later poll puts Harper at 43% support.

Related posts