Peace On That

I went to my annual eye exam for my contacts. The doctor looked into my eyes and asked me about my cholesterol. I was taken aback a bit, but responded that it was ok. Actually, my total cholesterol number is 217. A bit high but not high enough for medication, or so I thought. Apparently, there are two eye conditions that alert doctors to impending heart disease: arcus senilis and Hollenhorst plaque.

Arcus Senilis causes a thin white line to form around the cornea. This condition is seen in mostly older people but it can happen with young people with very high cholesterol levels. The second condition occurs when cholesterol deposits break and get lodged in the blood vessels of the retina.

I have neither of these conditions. The eye doctors saw cloudiness in my eyes and he said this is the beginning stages and that I should talk with my doctor because diet alone may not be enough to get my cholesterol down.

What I find funny is that I never would have thought about any of these things 20 years ago. But as I get older, health and retirement issues are looming and I can’t ignore them. I’m still in good health and I am planning on getting back into the gym next week. I’ve changed my diet, and I do look to take care of every aspect of my being beyond weightlifting. I still want the guns to look good, but what’s the point of having great arms and a heart that won’t beat?

A toast to living.

What Do You Do To Take Care of Yourself

Note: This is something I wrote for an assignment but I thought it would be a very interesting conversation for the blog.

Microcredit Discussion

I. What is the system of Microcredit?

Microcredit is a financial concept focused on eradicating poverty and reducing the vulnerability of impoverished people by providing financial assistance that would otherwise be available only through traditional financial institutes. Microcredit institutions extend small, unsecured loans with interest to poor borrowers for either investment or consumption. The typical repayment schedule I set on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Once borrowers have proven their credit-worthiness, they are allowed to borrow more. (Jason Meade, 2001)

Professor Muhammad Yunus, founder to the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh is credited with establishing Microcredits as a means to fight poverty and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his effort. Mr. Yunus saw that providing small loans to poor individual made substantial changes in their ability to survive and maintain themselves during a crisis. (Jason Meade, 2001) Along with loans, the Grameen Bank provides other financial services to service poor individuals and business enterprises in poverty struck areas.

II. Why is it important to the future of under-developed and emerging nations?

One basic point rendered in the poverty debate is that free enterprise and open markets have a greater impact on reducing poverty than aid. In America, many in the African-American community consider access to capital an economic hurdle and a major factor as to why African-American owned firms have not kept pace with overall growth in the American economy. If microcredit programs can achieve their objective, then I believe it can go a long way in providing access to capital that traditional institutions would not provide.

Another important factor about microcredits is its focus on empowering women. In many cultures women are relegated to subservient roles. Poverty among women is increasing and the problem is more pronounced in patriarch societies where women have very few rights. (Juanita Miller, ND) For women in need of financial resources to fund business ventures, microcredit institutions may be the only options.

As important as this financial system may be, I do wonder if a society can borrow its way out of poverty. Financing entrepreneurial ventures through microcredit financing, although risky, is a tool that could help reduce poverty. However, I fail to see the long-term benefit for a poor borrower that uses the loan for consumption purposes if additional economic development is lacking. Jeffrey Tucker opined that history has shown that wages, management, entrepreneurship, and savings rather than credit is the key to economic success. (Tucker, 2006)

The microcredit concept reminds me of the underground financial institutes that supported the resident in the Chicago south side neighborhood of my youth. My grandmother raised nine grandchildren on a social security check and food stamps. However, money was always scarce. To subsidies what little income she received, my grandmother turned to Mr. Ellis. Mr. Ellis was the local loan shark. He provided whatever funds were needed, with interest along with a 30 day due date.

Another source of credit was provided by the owner of the grocery store, Ms. Durka. Ms. Durka required only a note and a shopping list. This is how my grandmother survived until my brothers and I were of age to make money shoveling snow in the winter and mowing lawns in the summer. Though obviously more complex, microcredits provide the a survival mechanism for poor societies as the loan shark and Ms. Durka provided for my neighborhood.

I can appreciate alternative financial institutes designed to assist the poor. Yet, I believe that the microcredit method should be a part of a comprehensive economic development strategy. With its focus on empowerment and human rights, it is a solid foundation in which to build upon.

Topic for discussion:

1. Is it possible for a society to borrow its way out of poverty?
2. What's the difference between microcredit and pay day loan stores?
3. What is the best method to reduce poverty around the world?


Bibliography:

Tucker, Jeffrey. 2006. “Microcredit or Macrowelfare: The Myth of Grameen” Ludwig von Mises Institute. [Online Article] Retrieved on 12/10/06 at: http://www.mises.org/story/2375

Meade, Jason. 2001. “An Examination of the Microcredit Movement” The Collected Works of Jason Meade. [Online Article] Retrieved on 12/10/06 at: http://www.geocities.com/jasonmeade3000/Microcredit.html

Miller, Juanita. ND. “Poverty Among Women” The Ohio State University Fact Sheet Series. [Online Article] Retrieved on 12/12/06 at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/5705.html

Guy #1: Someone I know has an ex-girl friend that does all kinds of crazy things to him regarding visitations with his daughter. He sends money when he can but generally speaking, she uses his daughter like an axe over his head. I’ve told him several times to go to court, file for visitation and get the child support taken out of his check. He has yet to do it.

Guy #2: Another person I know decides to stop paying child support after he loses his job. Several months pass and he receives a bill for the past due amount. He throws a fit and threatens to take his ex to court for shared custody. It’ll never happen because he’s a nutcase but he throws it out there.

Guy #3: A friend’s ex would quit his job whenever the DA caught up with him about his child support. This man went from a $17 an hour job to a $10 an hour job just so he could pay less child support. It didn’t make sense, but like I said, he eventually quite the $10 an hour job.

It would seem that the least a man could do is pay his dues. Ok, some women may mess the money around, but there is nothing anyone can do about that. If there are concerns about the money, why not go for custody rather than skip on the child support?

Most guys pay somewhere between $300 and $600 a month. Anyone with a child will tell you that it takes a lot more money than that to raise a child. Am I not understanding something?

Really…. What's the issue with men and child support?

I’m a holiday junkie. I go all out for every holiday. I’m big on Halloween. I decorated the front porch, purchased a pirate costume and loaded up on candy with the expectations of handing out candy all evening. But I feel victim to my neighborhood.

Let me paint a picture for you. I live in Ladera Heights, an upper middle class, black neighborhood of Los Angeles. It is a beautiful place with beautiful homes. The problem that I have is that these black folks are like none that I’ve ever encountered. They are aloof, distant and snooty. It doesn’t feel like a neighborhood at all.

Ok, so it’s Halloween night and I have over a dozen bags of candy to hand out. I’m expecting a constant stream of children yelling “Trick or Treat”. What do I get? Trickle. There were hardly any kids walking around. More importantly, there was hardly anyone handing out candy. I believe my home was one of only two on out block handing out candy. It was very sad. I did find out that the action was at the top of the hill. But I would have thought my neighborhood would be a gold mine for candy.

Jaimie and I were warned about kids coming from South LA to trick or treat. I did get a lot of kids from outside the neighborhood. But guess what… they were just kids looking to score big. They weren’t rude, pushy or said anything out of the ordinary.

I believe the tension comes from my snooty neighbors treating them differently when the truth is that the kids from South LA want to have fun like other kids. I’m disappointed in my neighbors. Hopefully, the will step up at Christmas.

This post is taken from a post on Robert Neddo's blog about Free Will. I found it interesting and thought I take a stab at it for my intellectual entertainment.

A while back we had a debate on destiny as it relates to God. My belief is that there are predetermined consequences and rewards for living outside or inside the will of God. Therefore, when it’s all over, we are fully responsible for the decisions that we make. Thus, we are in complete control over out destiny. Having free will allows for the manifestation of that destiny.

Example: A young man wakes up at 5am every morning to practice so that he can become a track star. He practices after school and all day, every day during the summer. Upon graduating high school, he attends a major university that has a great reputation for developing Olympians. Eventually, this young man is invited to the Olympic Games and wins several gold medals. During an interview, he states that he worked his entire life to achieve the goal of winning a medal at the Olympics.

As a young man, he set the conditions and made the choices to achieve his goal. His parents didn’t push him into track. It was just something he wanted to do. It was his choice to make and he made it and did what was required of him to become successful.

Life, unfortunately, is much more complicated than that. We are the sum of our experiences, values, faith, education, family and morals. Boys who were raised with abusive fathers have a greater chance become abusive fathers. Over protected children become rebellious teens. People that go through a bad marriage become fearful of marriage. Those that were raised in homogeneous communities sometimes have a hard time relating to those from other ethnicities.

Our experience will often time dictate the choices that we make. Many of us were programmed with the importance of morals, values, God, culture, education, friendship and family by our parents. In essence, we are the results of what the people around us placed in us or failed to place in us. We then go on to live lives and make choices based on the indoctrination of our youth and the positive and the accumulation of negative experiences as adults. This is what makes defining free will very difficult. Because it seems impossible to exercise free will when we’re seeing and making choices based on the past.

There are several different definitions. Here are a few I found:

* freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes.

* the partial freedom of the agent, in acts of conscious choice, from the determining compulsion of heredity, environment and circumstance.

* The power of self-determination regarded as a special faculty

*Free will is the philosophical doctrine that holds that our choices are ultimately up to ourselves. The phrase "up to ourselves" is vague, and, just like free will itself, admits of a variety of interpretations.

Is There Such A Thing as Free Will?

Since we are the product of our past experiences and make decisions regarding the future based on our past, can we truly say that we have free will? In my example with the Olympian was a young man that was solely responsible for the conditions that allowed him to succeed and made the decisions without outside coercion. If a person sets the conditions and define the choices, would that not be an exercising of free will? It could be – but that’s not the reality of most people.

There are some that conclude that when we rely on the values, traditions and experiences of our youth, we are not operating with free will but what they consider determinism. Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences (source). So as long as we are connected in some way to our past, we can not possibly bring to bear free will.

Like those that believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, I find that this philosophy is too dogmatic for my taste. The way I see it, humans function within a range where absolute determinism is on end of the spectrum and absolute free will on the other. Where a person falls is determined by how conscious that person is about their life and the choices they make.

The more aware of the motivation and linkage to past experiences a person has and how those things impact their present condition and choices, the better they can control the circumstances of their lives going forward. The increased awareness of who you are and how you came to be will result in an increase of free will. It one thing to make decisions, but it is something different to make decisions while conscious of the motivations behind them.

David Hume argued that while it is possible that one does not freely arrive at one's set of desires and beliefs, the only meaningful interpretation of freedom relates to one's ability to translate those desires and beliefs into voluntary action. source

I want to get into the concept of God and free will but I’ll save that for another day. I’ll just let you guys chime in while I do some more reading.

1. What is your thought on free will?
2. Is an Omniscient (all knowing) God and free will compatible. (next topic)
3. What is your definition of free will?

I have a new position and I am much busier at work now. But I will shuffle my schedule so I can go back to some regular blogging. I haven't been to different blogs so I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

I have some post on politics, friendship and football coming up real soon. By next week, I'll be back to my regular postings.

In the meantime, drop me a comment letting me know what you're thinking:

1. What's your prediction for the upcoming football season?
2. How do you think things are going in Iraq?
3. Are unions the blame for the US auto industry woes?
4. How are the midterm elections shaping up?
5. Bush has a 36% job approval rating - where does your support stand?

It was the summer of 1986, Chicago, the 4700 block of Huron. I had just returned from shopping on Madison Avenue. In my bag was a new pair of Levis and a red Kangol. The Kangol cost $19 meaning I had to work five hours to purchase the dang thing. I walked into the house and my old man is playing The Mighty Clouds of Joy and cleaning fish from the morning fishing trip with my Uncle Truman.

I had to change fast because the old man had a habit of making me clean fish and it was too nice to sit on the back porch with a knife and a stack of blue gills. There was a knock at the door. My little brother answers it and yells that it’s my guy, MC Boo. I ran to the door, ‘wassup, man’.

“Yo, Rock Steady wants to battle us” he says excitedly. Rock Steady was our arch nemesis. Almost every other weekend there was a battle in Ohio Park between Rock Steady and The Cold Crush Crew. (Yeah, I know, we didn’t use much imagination on coming up with the name). I ran back into my room, dawned the Kangol, a red Adidas suit and hit the door.

There must have been a buzz going around because the park was packed with all three members of Rock Steady standing there with their peeps from the 4700 block of Race. Cold Crush carried Huron and Superior but Erie and Ohio went with the crew the won the last battle. Since Rock Steady challenged us, they went first.

For twenty minutes we went back and forth with our primary battle raps. We had Def Lyrics, Annihilating, Sucker MC, The Radical and a few others show stoppers. But as always, the brainstorms (what they now call freestyle) and the solos is what made the difference.

I was hyped because one of the cats for Rock Steady cracked on the size of my nose. Not that I have a big nose, but I’m a black man and his line was funny. Even my own boys kind of laughed at me. Well, it was my turn and I talked about his curl, his shoes, his girl, his mamma and his sorry rapping skills. Below is the only solo rap I can recall from that time.


All those who expect to be rocked will not be disappointed
The way I hold the mic I must be double-jointed
I met a sucker that would try to be greater
But I got him and shot him to the bottom like denominators
The numerator, I’m still number one, and I just begun
I clean suckers like custodians
I’m so insane after killing a man
I consume his body and try to kill him again… word
You say you’re sorry but I see right through you
I’ll pursue you, and chew you, and claim I never knew you
People say I’m the best when the send fan letters
And they know it on the streets MC Jazz in getting’ better
We’re lockin, and boppin when the beats start rockin
Suckers screaming, obeying, you know what I’m saying
Cuz when I make my arrival suckers scream Helter Skelter
Suckers hear the name Jazz, they run for shelter
Rest in peace, the final bell in ringin’
The party’s over son cuz the fat lady’s singin’
You life is over no ands or buts
The “J” rock just nailed your coffin shut
Because I’m very rough and I don’t just sing tough
I’m comin’ hard don’t you ever call me cream puff
I’m so insane don’t you ever forget it
I got a rock… and Imma hit you with it.


Ok, so it’s not Jay Z but it was a hot joint at the time. We polished them off with a couple of brainstorms and celebrated with three wings covered in mild sauce and a bag of cheese fries from Coleman’s Barbeque. After that, we walked the blocks and settled in on the front porch of an abandoned building and rapped well beyond midnight (if the old man had a pitty-pat game going we could stretch it another hour out of the evening).

Rap was fun then. I often wonder if I have a least one hot joint left. I’m sure I could come up with a hook and a least one hot verse. I’m not sure how my flow is – wack more than likely… but if Chingy could do it, I don’t see why I can’t.

Oh well, maybe I’ll just leave that for the young bucks and stick to reminiscing.

I’m still working on a post on Old Earth vs New Earth but something struck me during my readings. I’ve often heard that the Bible is the inspired word of God. That’s an interesting statement and I’ve never taken the time to contemplate it. So read more about what that statement means and I came up with several quotes.

Evidence of the book's inspiration includes prophecy, archeology, cohesive unity, accuracy, and Christ revealed. source

In the context of the Scriptures, the word inspiration simply means “God-Breathed.” Inspiration communicates to us the fact the Bible truly is the Word of God, and makes the Bible unique among all other books. source

Since I am not one to believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but influenced by the culture and understanding of the world at the time when written.

So let’s take a look at what the Bible states how we are to deal with a woman not being virgin.

20 "But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you," Duet. 20-22

When reading this scripture we are asked to keep in mind that this is the law of a culture that existed 3000 years ago. Now, I have to ask myself, or is this man’s way of enforcing God’s law against fornication? I choose the latter.

Although the authors of the Bible possessed some foresight, would it not be reasonable to conclude that just as men have interpreted the Bible for justification of the Inquisition, that they would not interpret the inspired word of God to reinforce their cultural norms?

I also wonder if the book of Genesis were written today, would it still state that God made the world in six days or would it take into account our increased knowledge in physics, geology and biology. Meaning, that the authors of the Bible had limited knowledge of the vastness of the earth and it’s complexity.

The reason this is such a difficult debate is because people will account for differences cultural language, moral code, traditions and lifestyles. But they won’t take into account the advancement of human knowledge.

Let’s face it, the Church was steadfast in its teachings that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. These beliefs came from a literal interpretation of the Bible. We now know that both are incorrect. Of course, many would say that the Bible does not say that the world is flat but since many people at the time believe that it was, God simply spoke to them in terms that they would understand.

If that is the case, then couldn’t one say that when God told Noah that a flood would cover the world, could He not have been saying that the flood would cover what they understood to be the world at that time? (read more)

So when Revelations reads: 1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (Rev: 7-1)

Am I to take that literally or as a figure of speech? If this is literal, then it is because the author believed what many believed at that time – the world was flat.

How is it that I have to take into account the differences in culture, men’s understanding of the world and traditions at the time with only some parts but other parts are to be taken literally?

I certainly believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? But I also know that the man’s limited understanding of his world is never from anything in which he involves himself. Therefore, unless God suspended free will while inspiring the authors, I feel comfortable with my non-literal interpretation approach.

Part I: Mexico vs. Japan

Chance posted on the difference between Japan and Mexico and questioned why Mexico, with abundant natural resources is a second world country while Japan is a first world country. His premise that Japan invested in human capitol i.e. education and advanced technical skills, while Mexico relies on exploiting its resources and maintaining a divide on developing its citizenry.

Mexico's economic system is based on exploitation of resources and labor. When Mexico signed the NAFTA deal they made they didn't have to comply with safety and worker rights regulations. They knew that American corporations were out to scrape the bottom of the barrel and Mexico provided those barrels. The problem is that they never took into account other merging markets and they never took the opportunity to develop its workforce with more education and advanced technical skills.

So when China emerged and the new "go to guy" for cheap labor, Mexico now found itself not only competing with a country that had cheaper labor, but also had a more educated workforce.

There are dozens of factories on the American/Mexico borders that closed because of China. What does Mexico do now; they export their uneducated workforce to the US. They maintain a political structure that ensures poverty for most of their citizenry. The world is advancing and I believe Mexico is fast becoming a 'tweener': Lower that second world but not yet a third world.

Part II: Muslim’s Intellectual Genocide

Notwithstanding Muslims incoherent hatred for Jews and all things western, they have an issue that goes far beyond extremist and the bastardized version of Islam they teach. Many Muslim nations do not comprehend that progress requires the development of human capitol. Afghanistan depends on the export of opium for survival. Because they choose to stunt the development of half its citizenry (women) and insist on living under tribal rule, they have ensured third world status for themselves.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are essentially third world nations with riches from oil. However, both countries still maintain and rigid and oppressive interpretation of Islam that hinders the development of large segments of their population. They fuel the extremist they direct their rage outward so that the existence of Israel and American influence is the cause of all of their grief.

The power brokers of Islam do themselves an the followers Islam a disservice by perpetuating the myth that Western culture is the reason for their condition. There are many Muslims living in America, practicing their faith and still thriving in a society that believes that ultimately, the responsibility of one’s soul rest with the individual, not the state. No state, culture, religion or philosophy can survive when part of its premise is an never-ending state of war.

Part III: The destruction of Islam

And this leads to my though of Americans calling for the annihilation of all practicing Muslims. Better yet, the following is comment I left on Bushwhack’s blog regarding this very issue.

I have a question. There is an estimated 2.8 million practicing Muslims in this country. Los Angles has the largest Iranian population of any city after Tehran. If you really believe that Islam and anyone practicing it should be consider the enemy and wiped from the face of the earth, then why don't I see Americans ridding this country of the Muslims that are easily accessible.

There are Mosques everywhere in Los Angeles. You could all arm yourselves and come on down to Los Angeles - just go over to Beverly Hills because that's where they shop - and you could pick off at least a 100 before the police even intervened.

Don't get me wrong, I there are some serious cultural issues with Muslims and I actually address them in today's post. But talk like this reminds me of what's going on in Uganda.

There are men there that believe in the total destruction of other tribe. But rather than do it themselves, they kidnap teenagers and force them to commit the massacre. The same concept here, we talk and encourage and hope that Israel and US soldiers take no mercy and kill at will and without mercy - while we sit comfortably knowing we'll never have to actually participate in the carnage. So I'll believe this is more than talk when I see you guys get up and take back west Los Angeles, with the corpse of Muslim men, women in children on display down Wilshire Blvd.

Final Thought

Whether by economic or religious means, the exploitation of the human condition is a tragedy that is now coming home to roost on the American psyche. Although the genocidal mentality I cannot condone, there is a justifiable reason for concern. We are in a perpetual state of philosophical and economic warfare. The failure on our part is not recognizing that at times, we are will participants.

American corporation exploit labor conditions around the world and our only response is to the stock price and price tag. We support repressive regimes for our economic interest and fund ‘the enemy of our enemy’ even when the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.

It is a crazy world and nothing is easy. But Americans seem stuck on one phrase ‘The world changed after 9/11.’ It makes for a nice bumper sticker but it doesn’t come close to the reality that the world did not change at all after 9/11. No, America was forced to remove its rose colored glasses and forced to deal with the ugliness of reality.

We've had a week of serious discussions. Let's end the week with some fun. Classic Repost!!!

When I first saw him I knew he was trouble. He entered my world through demonic means and by the temper tantrums of an eight year old girl who’s only purpose in life at that time was to torture me with the presence of everything Barbie. He catapulted his way into my legion of warriors, cowboys and comic heroes well known to many budding men as action figures. But he was no action figure. He was an emasculated sissy sent from the darkest corners of hell to play ornament to a materialistic dame and foreshadow the coming of the metrosexual. His name… is Ken.

Yes, the Ken doll. That tightie-whitie wearing punk that spends his time at tea parties and at arranged marriages instead of fighting evil is the reason we are where we are today. In the midst of those days when everything was about GI Joe and the Kung Fu Grip, the Six Million Dollar Man and packages of little army men taking anthills in the field, along came Ken and the downfall of man.

I know what many of you are thinking, ‘James, you’re walking on shaky grounds here, bruh.’ Well, I’m here to declare that that is not the case. The Ken doll was a propaganda tool by mustache-wearing, Adam’s apple having feminist. Their goal, drain testosterone from the American sphere. They gave Barbie beauty, brains and a career and then placed her in the presence of a chest hairless, bikini wearing, short short sporting with sweater wrapped around his neck, cheerleader squad joining PUNK. They neutered him to the point that even women didn’t like him.

I can't tell you how many Saturday afternoons I spent saving my Batman action figure from the abomination of joining a Barbie tea party. And where was that wuss Ken during all of this, in the corner of the closet with pompoms in his hands. He was even too much of a wuss for a little girl’s tea party – that my friend is a sad state indeed.

So I say to you my fellow Jurassic era Neanderthals, it is time stand up and proclaim that the era of the Ken doll is over. Cast him into the fiery pit of hell from whence he came. Showcase your childhood action figures and let the Ken doll feel the pain of a GI Joe Kung Fu Grip. Stop wearing white gloves, men. Stop wearing pink polo shirts, men! Stop with the body waxing and stop putting cucumbers on you eyes. Simply put – STOP BEING KEN!!!

Ok, it may mean that you will forgo some of the improvements your leading lady enjoys. But when the day comes when she sees you sitting on the sofa watching the game with rusty knees, ashy feet, straggly beard and scratching your armpit and ask what every woman would ask of the degenerative virus sitting before her, ‘what the hell are you doing?” You will reply with the force of 50 million years of stunted evolution and yell, “I am wallowing in the midst of the warrior that resides within me. I AM MAN, HEAR ME ROAR!!!”

Disclaimer: Make this comment at your own risk. Results may vary. Side affects may include, spousal yelling, screaming, being forced to endure long shopping trips to the mall, purchasing forgiveness jewelry or going without ‘hot lovin’ for an extended period of time.

Men, when you wake up in the morning. Ask yourself a question. Do you want to be this:




Or This.



The choice is yours men. Let us not buy into the propaganda any longer. Let us no longer believe that there is something terribly wrong with senseless violence in movies. Sure, you can play dolls with your daughters, hold your woman’s hand in public and even enjoy a chick flick every once in a while. But pick up a hammer. Put up some drywall. Use a charcoal grill. Order a meat lovers deep dish pizza! Be a man. There is no need to bring Ken out of the closet. No need at all.

Trust me on this men. One day you're at the beauty parlor getting a pedicure because your girl can't stand the look of your toes... and the next thing you know you're popping a hip...



DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU!!!BE A REAL MAN!!!

My fellow bloggers, it is with the utmost concern that I present this post at this time, at this place, and in this setting, so that we may embark on a philosophical discourse that may very well become the living testimony of our generation.

I seek from you, not trivial diatribes, but bold words so that once painted on this canvass, those words illuminate so that those that follow us will have this historical text to stand upon, whereby they will be embolden to speak truth to power.

We are at the crossroads, where the characterization of manhood is in jeopardy. We ignore this at our peril. I speak to you on this, not as an enlightened elitist, but as a brother in gender. I have no God inspired words to share but if what I say today ring of any truth then it shall be confirmed as such by your engagement.

With that said, I present to you two matters of concern, the first being the debate raging between the gas grill and the charcoal grill. It was written that in the “Code of Man” that a man lingering between the charcoal and gas worlds is lukewarm, and men of grilling prominence would regurgitate meat prepared by such a man. Behold, one day while presenting ribs, doused with hickory and maple barbecue sauce, as a sacrifice to my Jurassic nature, I was given truth. From this day forth, it was said unto me, we shall hold the charcoal grill as the pinnacle of grilling. It is the art form that most reflects our instinct to seek equilibrium between or modern and Neanderthal being.

The gas grill shall be looked upon as the dowdy understudy; adequate for a task and providing a means to an end. But its use is a virtuous as using a Bunsen Burner in lieu of candles to set a romantic mood.

Men who know not the ways of the charcoal grill will be referred to as “Cricket”. Those that master the art of lighting, controlling and maintaining a fire will be referred to as “Chuck”. I call on you to raise your voice and agree with me so that we can bring this law into fruition.

The next issue is of sports. The love of sports is not only our right as men, it is our virtue. But the world of sports is in decline and it is up to men to fight. It was written that sport is an activity governed by a set of rules. This abdominal generalization has forced us to believe that figure skating is a sport. Many generations of men conceded. With that concession came a downward spiraling into an abyss where we now are asked to accept “curling” as a sport. THIS CANNOT STAND!!!!

No more. From this day forth, the definition of a sport is “an activity in which opposing forces seek dominance over the other while relying upon at least two of the follow mechanisms: brute force, athletic ability or strategic maneuvering”.

This "truth" is our protection. It is our guiding light that allows us to care about real sports that matter: Football, basketball, baseball, boxing and NASCAR. While we recognize that there are otehr sports - the aformentioned sports are the foundation of man's love for sports.

By using this definition, we now can definitively prove that American Football is the greatest sport in the world since in entails using all three mechanisms on every play of the game. Nuff Said.

Furthermore, as men we must follow the code of sportsmanship. As football fans we are part of a collective that does discriminate based on race, religion, creed or political leanings. It is honorable for black men and white men to break rib tips and pop beer caps while discussing the virtue of the 46-defense. To reject a fellow fan of the game is a disgrace and shall bring shame upon the entire fan base.

Men, these are the issue that I bring before you. I admonish you to join me in clearing the path and bringing forth those issues regarding the state of man that give you pause. If we fail to act now, there will come a time, long after our departure, when some young lad will say to his mother, “Ah Mom, do I really have to go to football practice? The Curling tournament is on tv.” If we do not act, one day, while walking on the beach, a boy will spot and Weber and turn to his father and ask, "Dad, what's that?" His father will explain to him the anceint ritual of barbecuing. The son will contemplate and say to his father "Wow, that's a strange way to cook. What' charcoal?"

This question will usher in Armageddon. Don’t let this happen, men. I beg of you… don’t let this happen. And if my word fail to yield results, then my hope is that the words of a great man that before us will.


I take up my task in buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. I feel entitled at this juncture, at this time, to claim the aid of all and to say, "Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength." – Winston Churchill May 13, 1940

In the middle of my research I happen to come across a couple of post. One on Bushwack’s blog and the other on Mr Grey Ghost’s blog.

Bushwhack is promoting a day of fasting for conservatives to counter some anti-war fasting campaign pushed by Cindy Sheehan. This, he and others claim is a way of showing their support for out troops.

Grey Ghost posted a picture of the statue of liberty holding a cross rather than a torch. The pastor for the World Overcomers Outreach Ministries Church commissioned this statue.

The pastor said:

"People don't talk about Christ anymore and our morals are gone," Williams said. "People cannot drive by our statue without thinking about their relationship with God."

This is my issue: Americans are consumed with symbolic gestures in lieu of real action. We have a government that wastes time and money debating and passing non-binding bills. We have a government that debate social issues, present bills that they know won't pass for the purpose of getting a vote on record so they can use it for re-election purposes.


We have anti-war protesters doing rolling fasts and people countering them with a fast of their own.

We have conservatives fighting to get stickers placed on science books that say evolution is only a theory. They fight for prayer in school but they see no need to teach kids any spiritual lessons that are the basis for prayer.

We are inundated with quasi-political intellects debating serious issues with catch phrases and talking points. “Liberals hate America”, “Conservatives are evil”, and the list goes on and on.

Get Real

If you want to do something, why not do something that matters. If you don’t like the war, cool. Go to the polls and vote. You don’t believe the government is taking care of our veterans. Raise that issue, raise some money to assist those veterans. One march is cool, but damn - at some point marches become an excuse to get out of work, chill, yell then go home. It accomplishes nothing as the case with fasting.

You want to counter the fast and show support for the troops. Fine, raise some money and present it to the numerous families that are suffering because the deployments have reduced family income. Why not host a day of "celebration and information" for Iraq war veterans. I think a nice barbecue with organizations setting up booths to provide information and assistance to veterans would be more helpful than fasting for a day.

Church folks, you think this country is Godless – well, maybe you should do more outreach. Why spend $206,000 on a statue when can use that money to sponsor outreach or provide additional support to ministries. Is a statue more effective than a person who has a testimony when it comes to getting people to think about their relationship with God?

We have become a nation of slogans and gestures. Imagine if you will Rev. Martin Luther King petitioning his followers to build a statue of Fredrick Douglass rather than conduct a march in Selma Alabama. What if Vivian Malone Jones would have decided fast for a day to protest her denial into the University of Alabama?

I don’t really agree with the Minutemen, but they want the government to secure the borders. It hasn’t. So they took action.

I’m not fasting, marching or burning anything for any cause. If we support a mission of an organization or movement, we should want to see tangible results. If I’m a member of a church, I can’t support them using our money to build a replica of the Statue of Liberty – for what. The church’s mission is to preach and teach the word of God… what’s 70 foot statue have to do with that.

I support our troops but I see no reason to fast to show my support. Why? How is me not eating going to help a veteran who is deal with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder? Hell, I’m saying I’m going to take action to support the troops then partake in an event where I don’t even come in contact with one.

It makes no sense.

This is the first in a series of post on the role of religion in America. There are three areas that I am going to blog on: Education, Politics and the Public Square. Hopefully, this will spark a decent debate.

I’ve never been one to debate the meaning of the establishment clause and what the writers of the Constitution meant when it comes to the separation of church and state. The reason is because it seems as though it should be common sense. But common sense is not so common and fanaticism and politics makes the situation worse.

Every society needs a moral standard and for the most part, America’s moral standard is derived from Christian principles. With that said, should we then assume that Christian philosophy, traditions and doctrine should play a more important role in our society than what it does today?

I think the problem is that no one has revealed the place where one crosses the line from democracy and theocracy. Basically, the debate is narrowed down to a few wedge issues: abortion, school prayer, intelligent design, gay marriage and the like. Then we have secularist fighting God in the Pledge of Allegiance, religious symbols in the public square and traditions with religious overtones. So everyone is fighting the boogey man as they see it and no one is clearly articulating what it is that they truly want.

So the question then becomes, how do we move the debate beyond talking points and symbolic wars? So rather than school prayer, which I find to be a ludicrous debate, or Intelligent Design, why not ask what role should religion play in public education?

I’ve already discussed Intelligent Design in science but why does the debate stop with one part of Biology and not Physics or Geology? Aren’t there biblical teachings that contradict those scientific disciplines?

The debate on prayer in school is another issue I am curious about. How does one allot time for children to pray without providing any guidance behind it? To simply call it is a “moment of silence” or a “time for reflection” diminishes the importance of prayer and turns the entire episode into a symbolic gesture with no substance behind it.

What confuses me most, and probably many others, is that I am never sure exactly what people mean when they speak of wanting religion to play a bigger role in public education. I can understand not wanting to give up traditions that may have Christian overtones. I see nothing wrong with Christmas plays or even having the Ten Commandment on display. But those are mostly symbolic but should the education go further in incorporating Christianity in schools?

So here are my questions:

1. What is the proper role of religion in developing curriculum?
2. Are only Christian overtones allowed in public schools or are overtones from other faiths welcomed as well?
3. How do we balance Christianity in public schools in communities where Christianity is not the dominant faith?
4. Should all science courses (Biology, Earth & Physics) include religious theories?
5. Should students be required to study the bible?

In the first part of this series I presented a simple question, do you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible? That question generated several responses but the general theme of every comment was that each individual had come to his or her own understanding and made the Bible relevant to that understanding.

If religious philosophies existed only in the realm of personal beliefs and in individual actions, then there would be no need to debate this issue any further. But since those personal philosophies eventually make their way into the public realm via political discourse or legislations, then we must delve into those philosophical interpretations and how the literal interpretation of the Bible impact said legislation.

Like in Part I, I would like to defuse some basic debatable items whenever the discussion of the role of religion in politics is brought up.

1. America was founded on biblical principle. Although it has yet to live up to those principles, the fact that the founding fathers acknowledge those guiding principles provided a means for different movements to force America to evolve and live up to those stated principles.

2. The separation of church and state does not mean the exclusion of religious symbols and religious traditions in the public square. Only that the state is not to create any laws that establishes a particular religion or restrict the exercise of any religion.

Often times the role of religion in our society is symbolic in nature and their arguments don’t affect our everyday lives. The fight over the posting of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms or display of a cross on the Seal of towns really doesn’t mean much to the average Joe. Then there debates that affect our lives in the most profound manner: The fight to include Intelligent Design in science curriculum, the debate over prayer in school, the use of public funds to finance religious education stem cell research and the battle to allow political discourse from the pulpit without the fear of the church losing its tax-exempt status.

The reason that these debates are on the rise is because the Evangelical Christians changed their philosophy about not mixing itself into politics and declaring a cultural war. They pursue this war under the guise of freedom of religion. As though the exclusion of Intelligent Design in public schools is a restriction of their right to practice their faith. This is not the case but it makes for a compelling debate.

An argument can be made that our Christian foundation sets the standards for many of our rights so it is appropriate to reference them when facing new issues. But the reference of principle is different than the reference of biblical interpretations.

Lets take gay marriage as an example. This debate is strait out of the Bible as there are several passages on the subject. But is it right to use Biblical references to establish or restrict the rights of a certain segment of our population? The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

When something is self-evident, it means that it is comprehensible outside of religious doctrine or philosophical bent. Therefore, it is not necessary for a moral code to be derived from the Bible to make it applicable to our moral standards. So through an interpretation of the Bible some conclude that gay marriage is an abomination, it is fair to apply that private interpretation to society at large? Is it especially fair when the government recognizes marriage not as a religious union but as a legal union as it pertains to property, taxes and other civil procedures?

Prayer In School: I’m not sure why this is a controversial issue. It seems rather obvious to me that children have the right to pray, read the bible or have bible study groups as long as it is student led. The argument for a moment of silence is ridiculous. I remember high school very well. There were never any moments of silence except with remembering the passing of a classmate. Should a student be allowed to lead a prayer at a graduation ceremony? Sure, if a Muslim, Jew or Hindu is allowed to lead a prayer. But the issue is deeper than this but I will have to save that for another post.

There are a host of issues like these and it seems as though religious groups are making an effort to place Biblical passages on the same plain as the words written in the declaration of Independence. As we tailor more laws to accommodate those Biblical passages, are we not wandering down the path to creating a quasi theocracy?

In Part III, I’ll look at the “movers and shakers” behind the cultural war and how religion became such a part of the political landscape.

Discussion Starters:

1. What is the proper role of religion in creating laws on a religiously diverse society?
2. Would a greater role of religion in the political arena result in more or less liberty for Americans?
3. Does religion even afford us the freedoms that we now enjoy?

A series of post on the Intelligent design debate.

1. Intelligent Design
2. Intelligent Design Debate Revisited
3. Intelligent Design Debate revisited Pt. II
4. Intelligent Design: A Validation Of Faith
5. Guest Post By Malik: Intelligent Design

This is a guest post written by Malik, author of the blog, The Struggle Within to add his perspective to the Intelligent Disign debate that we are having this week. I am opening the blog up to other guest posters so if you are interested in posting on any subject of your choosing, email me at: jamesmanning1969@yahoo.com.

Thanks for taking the time to consider my perspective. I’ll start by emphasizing that the bible, although literally true, is not a linear account of physical events. It uses symbol and metaphor to describe both physical and spiritual realities, and the usages of words that describe time, such as days, weeks and years, are not always customary usages.

First let’s look at the varying ways in which the bible uses calendar time. An excellent example is the prophecy of Daniel concerning the appearance of Jesus. These are the verses in question:

Dan. 9:24 Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

Dan 9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed.

Daniel says that the time between the restoration of Jerusalem and the appearance of an anointed one is seventy weeks, and then he says it’s seven weeks and sixty two weeks. Which is it? Let’s first consider an interpretation of the seventy weeks.

“These seventy weeks begin with the restoration and the rebuilding of Jerusalem, concerning which four edicts were issued by three kings. The first was issued by Cyrus in the year 536 B.C.; this is recorded in the first chapter of the Book of Ezra. The second edict, with reference to the rebuilding of Jerusalem, is that of Darius of Persia in the year 519 B.C.; this is recorded in the sixth chapter of Ezra. The third is that of Artaxerxes in the seventh year of his reign—that is, in 457 B.C.; this is recorded in the seventh chapter of Ezra. The fourth is that of Artaxerxes in the year 444 B.C.; this is recorded in the second chapter of Nehemiah.” –Some Answered Questions

The specific edict that Daniel refers to in verse 9:24 is the third edict issued in 457 B.C by Artaxerxes in the seventh year of his reign, restoring the temple rites. Seventy weeks equals 490 days (7x70). Each day is a year, for according to the Bible, days also refer to years: “forty days, for every day a year.” (Num 14:34) And also, “And you shall count seven weeks of years, seven times seven years, so that the time of the seven weeks of years shall be to you forty-nine years.” (Lev 25:8) Christ was crucified at 33 years of age. 457 + 33 = 490, the time appointed by Daniel.

However in the next verse he says the appointed time is seven weeks and sixty two weeks, immediately after referring to seventy weeks. How do you reconcile the two seemingly different time periods?

There are two events that Daniel makes reference to. The first is the command to restore the temple rites in Jerusalem by Artaxerxes (Dan 9:24). The second is the completion of the restoration of Jerusalem (Dan 9:25), which was completed over a period of 49 years (from the time the wall of Jerusalem was built to the time the temple and the city was completed – cf. Daniel’s Seventy Weeks by Walter T. Robinson). That is the seven weeks. From that time to the appearance of Christ is 62 weeks. The 69 weeks is 457 years, the time elapsed between the restoration of the temple rites and the birth of Christ.

I only mention all of this in order to emphasize that there are many levels of meaning to the words in the Bible, and any part must be read in the context of the whole in order to derive the full meaning. Taking a specific verse out of context and interpreting it according to present-day usages and concepts, as Creationists do, is a poor and misleading method of reading the bible, and does violence to the intent and spirit of the verses. The fact that the apparent meaning is not always the intended meaning is something that the followers of Jesus have always had trouble wrapping their heads around, as the Gospels illustrate numerous times. “Eat your flesh and drink your blood? John the Baptist is Elias? Born again? What?!”

Now let’s consider what’s actually said in Genesis. First of all, as we’ve already established, there’s no reason why we have to interpret “day” as meaning a 24 hour day. We’ve already seen that days are used as years. There’s no reason to believe that days can’t also refer to epochs.

Now let’s compare the order of events as given in Genesis with modern scientific theories.

Day 1

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The formation of proto-planets from stellar material after the Big Bang is a widely accepted theory. And obviously there is light (Day) and the absence of light (Night) in space. No conflict with day one.

Day 2

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Most scientists believe that the atmosphere and oceans formed as a result of the condensation of the gases surrounding the primordial earth. No conflict with day two.

Day 3

And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

According to modern scientific theory, after the formation of the oceans and atmosphere, algae began to grow on the oceans and converted CO2 into oxygen. Then plants began to grow on land. No conflict with day three.

Day 4

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Now day four may seem to be problematic, if you take it to mean that stars were created after the earth, but if you take it as a description of the sky as viewed from earth, there is no conflict, and in fact it fits quite well with current theories of the formation of the moon. There is no universally accepted theory of moon formation, but the current frontrunner is the “big whack” theory. The idea is, something rammed the planet, and tore off a big chunk of it, which became the moon. Let’s see how that theory might fit with the text of Genesis.

The Big Whack theory speculates that an object colliding with the earth kicked up a massive debris cloud (which would obscure the sky) and eventually the cloud coalesced into the moon (revealing the sun and the stars). Some versions of the theory speculate that there actually two whacks: one that accelerated the angular momentum of the planet (which would change the length of the day) and another that slowed its spin (which would give us the length of our current day). At any rate, after the planet and atmosphere stabilized, life on earth came to be regulated by the rhythms of the sun and the moon, and it is the rhythm of the days and seasons that is emphasized here.

Day 5

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

It is widely accepted that animals appeared after plants. No conflict with day 5.

Day 6

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And finally, it is widely accepted that the human species appeared after the first animals roamed the earth. No conflict with day 6.

With all that said, I don’t believe that there necessarily has to be perfect conformity between modern scientific theory and our understanding of the Bible in order for one or the other to be correct, for our understanding of both science and religion is necessarily limited (i.e. there’s always more to learn). But we need both, in order to fulfill God’s will and purpose. When we exclude the knowledge that comes from reason and experience, we fall into fanaticism and superstition. When we exclude the knowledge that comes from faith and assurance, we fall into selfishness and animalism.

All of this is simply to demonstrate that there does not necessarily have to be a conflict between modern scientific theories and the text of the bible. It is never necessary to abandon faith for reason, or reason for faith. Each reinforces and complements the other. There is only a conflict when we make our own narrow and dogmatic conceptions the final arbiter of truth, and substitute them for the plain and evident testimony of God’s handiwork and His Word, in contravention of both faith and reason.

I thought I was through with this topic but the discussion of Intelligent Design has sparked another interesting line of thinking. Is evolution and the word of God diametrically opposed to one another? Is it important to debunk evolution so not to diminish the God’s role in shaping the universe?

We know that the Bible encompasses the history of the universe into a very small window. By most theologians account, that window is no more than 6000 years. Science on the other hand has noted that Earth is around 4.5 billions years old. That is a significant difference. This is how scientist date the earth:

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

Source: Go There

According to the Bible, the earth is between 6,327 and 6,573 years old. Source: http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/timeline.htm

My Thoughts:

Rather than get into a scientific argument, which I am not qualified to do, I will approach it for a laymen’s perspective. I believe this argument comes down to one question. Does the belief in the validity of the evolution theory contradict the word of God? For the supporters of ID and believers in the literal interpretation of the Bible, I believe it does. For some us it doesn’t. I noticed that most of ID studies centers around the Great Flood. And it is here where I find the greatest reason not to support the teaching of ID in public schools.

Even with the most scientific approach to the Bible, we are still required to use our faith in the word of God. Evolution challenges several aspects of the Bible that we cannot subject to a scientific model.

Adam & Eve:

The belief in Adam and Eve is paramount to the Christian faith. You cannot get to Jesus without first recognizing the fall of Adam. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- (Romans 5:12)

We are all decindent of Adam and Eve. Evolution directly challenges that because we know through science that there is high probability of deformation in the offspring of brothers and sisters. Obviously, Cain had to marry his sister before he entered the land of Nod because there were no other people around. We have no idea how many children Adam and Eve produced so it is a model that cannot be duplicated.


Noah’s Ark:

Noah was commanded to take two of every land dwelling animal on the ark. According to some ID scientist, this did not mean he had to take every species of dog but ‘dog kind’. Meaning he may have taken a dog and when the dog emerged from the ark they evolved into coyotes and wolves ect… There is a detailed explanation here on the size and how it may have been possible to fit every animal kind on ark. But even with this explanation, it still requires some work of faith. We also have to assume that God provided a means for all of the animals since we know they could not have fed the sheep to the lions.

But even here, there is recognition that some sort of evolution took place since only groups of animal kinds were taken on the ark. Since we know that dogs, coyotes and wolves are of the same species, they evolution would have to have taken place over a very short period.

We also have to assume that human kind was all but wiped out, so redistribution of people and the repopulation of the earth would have had to taken place rather fast as well. So even someone that believes in ID would have believe in some form of evolution. The problem then becomes a matter of the span of time in which animals evolved. Evolutions states that it may have taken millions of years. Creations believe that it happened over a much shorter span of time. So what separates the two? The Bible. So we’re back to implementing religion in the science class.

Stars:

When we see the light of a star we are actually looking at light that may have been generated a million years ago. This is based off of the speed of light and the distance the stars are from Earth. So how is it that there is light that is a million years old in a universe that is only 6000 years old? There is Biblical explanation here. But even the author noted that there is no clear explanation for this and he falls back to his faith in the word of God. Which I have no problem with, but does that belong in a public school science class?

Here’s the thing. I believe in God and I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in them as much as I believe that I have a mother that birthed me. I believe in the Bible although I do not believe the literal interpretation of it. But on many occasions, the word of God has been my strength and I know that God has answered my prayers and has watched over me. So, I’m not looking for a scientist to validate my belief. I’m not worried if science somehow challenges me on things that I read in the Bible. I can’t feed 5000 people with a loaf of bread. But I believe Jesus did. I can’t part the Red Sea. But I believe Moses did. There are a lot of things that I take at faith value when I read the Bible. And that is good enough for me. But I’m not supportive of placing my religious teachings in a science class.

This is a free country and a person is free to teach their children what they feel they need to know. But ID is simply a scientific way of confirming one’s faith. And that does not belong in the public schools.

This is an interesting experiment. Mahndisa has provided a new spin on the discussion of ID that I have never read. Her take is that ID cannot be discussed outside the realm physics. This is different because up until now, everyone has discussed ID in context with biology. You can read the comments area in yesterdays post or read her comments on Reva's Take post on the same subject.

Today, I want to delve into another part of this debate. Creationist are saying that their goal is to present an opposing view to Darwinism and not inject religion into the science class. Their belief is that children have the right to know that evolution is not fact and there is evidence that is contrary to its conclusions.

I was provided a link to a creationist website and read several areas of it dealing with evolution. There were several areas that interested me; dinosaurs and tectonic plate movements. It is this area where the creationist theory simply fascinates me. And it is here where the idea of bringing it into the classroom most disturbs me because the basis of the theory is rooted in Biblical teachings.

Dinosaurs

According to some creationist, dinosaurs walked the earth with man. They even note that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark.

Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55
different 'kinds' of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like
the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably 'teenagers'
or young adults.

The basic theory is that the flood wiped out the dinosaurs and when the remaining species of dinosaurs emerged from the ark they were not able to adapt to the climate changes and soon perished. However, there is an interesting passage in the book of Job that one creationist referenced that hinted at the fact that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time many years after the great flood.

In the Bible, in Job 40:15-24, God describes to Job (who lived after the
Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. This great animal, called
‘behemoth,’ is described as ‘the chief of the ways of God,’ perhaps the biggest land animal God had created. Impressively, he moved his tail like a cedar tree! Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or
hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur like
Brachiosaurus. Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar
trees!

This would suggest to me that dinosaurs did adapt to the climate and flood did not cause their extinction. The flood is the source that creationist use to confirm the many fossils found. Their explanation is that fossilization didn't take place over millions of years but in a matter of decades or hundreds of years. So, if this is the case then we should have found dinosaur bones that have not been fossilized because the extreme conditions caused by the flood are no longer a factor.

Tectonic Plate Movement

This is an interesting subject as well. Based on creationist, the tectonic plate movement occurred over a period of months, not millions of years.

rapid subduction of the pre-flood ocean floor into the mantle results in new ocean floor that is dramatically hotter, especially in its upper 60 miles, not just at spreading ridges, but everywhere. Being hotter, the new ocean floor is of lower density and therefore rises 3,000 to 6,000 feet higher than before and implies a dramatic rise in global sea level.

Furthermore, BaumgardnerÂ’s modeling predicts that because this thermal runaway subduction of cold ocean floor crustal slabs occurred relatively recently, during the flood (about 5,000 or so years ago), then those slabs would not have had sufficient time since to be fully assimilated into the surrounding mantle. So, evidence of the slabs above the mantle-core boundary (to which they sank) should still be found today. Indeed, evidence for such unassimilated relatively cold slabs has been found in seismic studiescientistetist, the great flood caused the tectonic plate movement which happened over a period of months not millions of years.

I haven't studied earth science since 8th grade so I won't speak on this. However, it does raise some interesting questions about the ID model. There are those that want to introduce ID to the science class without reference to religion. They say that they simply want to challenge evolution as the only theory. After studying the premise of ID on this and several other websites, I am not sure how they can argue that ID is not Biblically based.

My Conclusion

The entire premise of ID is not that the world was designed intelligentligen entity, but that the Bible is historically accurate in all facets of science. How can you argue that the earth is only 6000 years old without injecting the premise of where the 6000 came from? It seems to me that methodology used by creationist scientist is meant more to proved the accuracy of the bible than it is to prove or disprove a theory.

Based on what I read, I am now fully against the introduction of ID in the science class. If this theory is to move forward in the high school curriculum, then its presentation should happen only in a philosophy or religious studies class. I'm not even sure if it necessary to know the theory of ID at this point. At this point, it requires more faith in the scientist than in the Bible. And I'm not prepared to that.