Tag Archives: Daniel

Stephen Meyer is named Daniel of the Year for 2009 by World Magazine

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer

There can be only one. (H/T Evolution News)

Excerpt:

From his office Meyer has ventured forth to debate at least nine prominent Darwinians on CNN, NPR, FOX, the BBC, and other venues. In it he has written numerous newspaper and magazine columns in defense of Intelligent Design (ID), as well as an academic article that became notorious five years ago when Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian-affiliated scientist, agreed to publish it in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

[…]When Meyer completed his dissertation, “Of Clues and Causes: A Methodological Interpretation of Origin of Life Studies,” the University of Cambridge in 1991 awarded him its prestigious Ph.D. Meyer, having proceeded through questioning and discernment stages, had to decide whether to enter the courage stage. Everyone knows that microevolution—change within species—occurs, but the critical issue is whether the descendants of dinosaurs become birds through natural selection. Denying macroevolution leaves scientists unprotected even at some Christian colleges.

[…]Courage becomes a determinant once we count the cost and see that it’s great. Meyer’s first inkling came when “talking about my ideas to people at Cambridge High Table settings, and getting that sudden social pall.” But the cost was and is more than conversational ease: San Francisco State University in 1992 expelled a professor, Dean Kenyon, who espoused ID, and other job losses have come since.

I met Dr. Meyer for the first time at the Baylor University conference on intelligent design in 2000. He comes across as extremely genuine and approachable. At other conferences, he even remembered my name! I still hold out hope of one day going for a PhD (I even came up with a great idea this week) and it’s largely because of authentic Christian scholars like Dr. Meyer who inspire me with a vision of what is possible.

Obama supports socialist dictator against democracy in Honduras

Why does Obama only meddle when the pro-democracy side is winning?
Why does Obama only meddle when the pro-democracy side is winning?

(Image from IBD’s Michael Ramirez, sent to me by ECM).

First, I really recommend you take a look at this beautifully-written article by Mary Anastasia O’Grady in the WSJ. It explains how the Honduran military was authorized by their Supreme Court to prevent their leftist dictator from extending his reign beyond the term limits required by law.

Excerpt:

It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking.

…That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

But O’Grady is not optimistic that it will stick, especially with the pro-dictator Obama offering support to the dictator Zelaya via Hillary Clinton:

But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya’s abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.

Read the whole thing, it’s worth it.

But the best ongoing coverage of the Honduras situation is at Fausta’s blog. The main the thing I want to note from her coverage is that she has many links to other sites.

Excerpt:

This is why Zelaya was removed from power: all branches of government and the country’s institutions recognized that he had broken the law.

Check out this story from the WSJ: (H/T Gateway Pundit)

The Obama administration worked in recent days to prevent President Manuel Zelaya’s ouster, said a senior U.S. official. The State Department, in particular, communicated to Honduran officials on the ground that President Barack Obama wouldn’t support any nondemocratic transfer of power in the Central American country.

“We had some indication that a move against Mr. Zelaya was afoot,” said a U.S. official briefed on the diplomacy. “We made it clear it was something we didn’t support.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined Obama Sunday in criticizing the Honduran coup and calling for the restoration of the democratic process.

“We call on all parties in Honduras to respect the constitutional order and the rule of law, to reaffirm their democratic vocation, and to commit themselves to resolve political disputes peacefully and through dialogue,” Clinton said in a statement.

We saw above that everything that the Honduran government did was within the rule of law, and yet Obama and Hillary are following Chavez’s lead and making it sound like Zelaya was following the law!

Thanks to ECM for notifying me about this story.

Argentina

Just a quick link to Fausta’s blog again to note that other left-wing socialists were kicked out in the Argentinian election.