Sex Culture - or Thoughts About the Election

I am seeing a huge swing into the world of sex. This is not covert, as it used to be. This is flashy and unapologetic. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, except for actual acts, I have little to say about my participation.

You see, this occurs at my university. It occurs in many places where people gather. It is pervasive and stifling.

What used to be reserved for the bedroom is now served on platters. And even in places where it isn't, where it is kept a little more quiet, it is still not the private, protected, and sacred thing it used to be.

Every woman, it seems, wants to be considered, not just beautiful or pretty, but sexy, too. In fact, sexy is the new "pretty."

I heard some, I use the term cautiously, minorities, talking the other day about how the culture of hip-hop has changed and the music has become less of a creative niche and more of a platform of idolatry: promiscuity and materialism. I couldn't agree more when the gentleman expressed his disenchantment with it all.

A personal observation, and it isn't a blanket statement but more of a concern: the people who have come up in the sex culture, embrace it and further it, are now of voting age. There are many, many of them. And good, I say. That is, IF they choose wisely, reject the idols that will suck their lives away and vote with a clear conscience.

I do not mean that they can only vote fore one candidate and maintain a clear conscience. I could not advocate a thought such as that with a clear conscience, because FREEDOM is about CHOICE.

However, within that choice, I also advocate wisdom. What is wisdom at this stage? The ability to tell when someone is being truly intolerant and when they are exhibiting care for your well-being, for starters.

In fact, I fussed at a classmate recently who doesn't wear a helmet on his motorcycle (no helmet law, here). He offered his opinion on the topic and I listened, yes, but maintained my positioned and threatened to kill him if he got himself killed. Is this intolerance or care? Given that a friend of mine died because she didn't wear her seatbelt, I think I have a reason to fuss.

In fact, this could be applied to nearly everything that is upheld by many individuals, including, but not limited to, Christians. I am a Christian, so the increase in negative attitude toward Christianity, while often deserved, is a bit mystifying when applied blanketly. For instance, I've run into this thought process: Christian = stupid, judgmental, anti-Darwinist goon. Most people won't say this to a person's face, but thoughts are prevalent in much media (not necessarily professional media).

What I'm saying is that, when I suggest to an 18 yo that breaking the law, getting hammered, and getting behind the wheel might not be a great idea, or that I would actually stand in their way of implementing such a decision, I think it's a bit stupid of the 18 yo, not to mention illustrative of the reasons why 18 yo's shouldn't drink, to say that I'm being intolerant of them as a human and that I don't care about anything but the money in my wallet (in spite of the fact that I am also a student with a family, and absolutely no money to speak of).

If I say to one of my good friends that I think her practicing homosexuality could prove harmful to her (which I haven't said, but if she asked, I probably would), if I act caring in all other ways, then how does it follow that this is about--whatever someone who wants to react wants to accuse me of? Stupidity? Old-fashionism? Intolerance? Bigotry?

Is the Bible bigoted about homosexuality? Well, here are some thoughts: perhaps it was so frowned upon in the Bible because, the descriptions in the Bible were of promiscuity and hedonism. In other words, the known homosexuality was related to orgies and rape. It could be, that due to the promiscuity (homo- and hetero-), disease was rampant within those populations that practiced homosexuality (and probably heterosexuality, as both had death as punishment). Add to that, the fact that homosexuals do not procreate on their own, at a time when survival of a group of people was contingent upon it (as it always is), it would make sense that the practice was discouraged.

This fits into the value the Bible expresses for life. The times when an entire people were wiped out, or when the command was for the people to be wiped out, it was for a reason, or by the target group's own doing (as in Jericho).

If I say that I think abortion is wrong, and vote accordingly, because, get this, I value the lives of any unborn, regardless of the parents' party affiliation and convictions or choices, is this uncaring? Face it, if we keep on this route, those who CHOOSE LIFE will outnumber those that CHOOSE ABORTION some day. That the CHOOSE LIFErs advocate procreation of those who disagree should say a lot about their intents. The focus isn't political; it regards the perpetuity of humans. I suppose I could ride the politically correct line and say: off your offspring if you want to. But I don't. Why? Intolerance? No. I care.

Like my fussing at my friend for motorcycling with no helmet, I would fuss at those who advocate recreational marijuana use. If you want to fizzle your brain out, be my guest, I suppose I could say. But it seems wrong to tow that line which gives me a distinct advantage.

Survival of the fittest and most tolerant; maybe it's true, after all.

Regi G

Beginning at the Beginning

I had a discussion with my friend the other day, who is very smart. The interesting thing abou this friendship is that we are both free thinkers and even though we disagree, we allow each other to think what we want.

She mentioned that others take the Bible as the LITERAL Word of God. Well, I do, too. This is why:

If we look at the Haldane experiment, we have two things wrong with it: one, we have a creator, two, we have a human creator. (Funny enough, my friend and I agree on this. This was an original idea of mine, from when I studied biology, so not to take credit away from her or to overlook my contribution, but we arrived at the same conclusion separately.) Next, Christians are talking about an omnipotent being, who can create anything, at will. So, if we take the Bible literally, that means it happened the way it is written, not in the human perspective, but that we must take God's word for it. We are able to do this because while writers of science books show a curious preoccupation with addressing religious arguments, they also deny that science is suited to answer those questions.

So, Christians, if they claim an omnipotent being who is above scientific detection (watch out for the backlash argument that all claims that come from Christianity are not within the realm of science), can say that the Bible is the literal Word of God, also infallible, although the interpretation may not necessarily be a literal (in human eyes) or a well-defined one.

This is where Christians start.

Regina G

What's the Limit?

Many Christians have this notion that we are to give and give and give and give to others, and when it hurts, we keep on giving.

However, what do we do when someone is taking advantage of our giving? Here are some examples:

1. In good faith, you exchange time at work with someone. That person never returns the favor.

2. You forgive your brother for "borrowing" your money and never paying you back.

3. Someone enjoys your forgiving nature, but is quick to judge you, even when that person is guilty of the same "crime," or worse.

4. A spouse is abusive.

5. An employer works you hard and never says "thanks," and even throws a fit when you need time off to care for your ailing family member.

Are we supposed to be so understanding, forgiving, kind, etc., all the things we have been taught that we should be by other Christians, some of whom do not abide by this rule, themselves?

The answer is: that depends. The Bible puts a limit on the hurt a spouse may do to another spouse, but the Lord never says divorce is commanded in such a case. Rather, we may divorce in certain circumstances, if we think we need to for...a viariety of reasons.

Christians are humans, after all, and divorce is part of the human condition. In fact, many rifts between people are a result of sin. I think that, to some degree, as long as you aren't one to take advantage, you have a choice in how to approach a variety of situations, but you are not required to do the more benevolent thing.

Neither do I think that if you decline to do the "more benevolent thing," that makes you less benevolent than someone else. In fact, depending on the situation, it can reveal benevolence to a great degree; that also depends on the person viewing the events. God is the one we really need to worry about.

If we, for whatever reason, cannot continue to allow someone to sin because we are around, whether that person sees their deeds as sin or not, it is a benevolent thing to remove ourselves from the situation.

What if someone has an illness? I say, give to your limit, then remove yourself. At least, take time away to renew.

I think we Christians, in the well-meaning goal of acting with love, forget that the human "love tank" is only so big, and we must find the Lord and renew. Sometimes, that means we are taken out of someone's life, either temporarily or permanently.

Life is hard, and some of our experiences are traumatic. God can heal any wound, but that doesn't mean he always will. There are reasons that God allows such deep wounds to remain. In that case, we must do our best to point back to Him (but remember that even Jesus took breaks from His followers).

If the times of renewal aren't renewing, it may be that we need a longer time of renewal. The question is, are we Christians honest enough to admit when we are no longer loving someone, in order to get that refreshing break?

Regi

Stephen J. Gould, the...theologist?

In his paper, "The Panda's Peculiar Thumb," Dr. Gould expressed the following idea:

"If God had designed a beautiful machine to reflect his wisdom and power, surely he would not have used a collection of parts generally fashioned for other purposes."

This was a treatise from science on the topic of evolution. Yet, there is this bit of conjecture about what God would do, if there is such a being.

This is not an argument from science. It sounds like an argument from incredulity.

If Stephen J. Gould can do it, why not me?

What is Sin?

I want to get this article up, because it's important, but a fuller exposition must wait.

In short, I think that sin is those thoughts and activities which bring harm to ourselves and others. This is, obviously, a very skeletal explanation of sin, but it will have to do for now.

One reason for why I think this is that the Bible says, "All things are permissible, but not all are beneficial." To me, this says that we can do just about anything our minds can conceive, and no one will stop us, but that doesn't mean we should do them.

The Bible also lists the things God hates, which are the chief sins, and nearly all others are derivatives of these. The Ten Commandments also guide us in knowing what sin is. I think we all know what sin is. It is doing wrong. How deeply we consider sin to go is nearly individual, with more guidance from scripture letting us know that our thoughts can be sinful, especially if we indulge the thoughts.

Hopefully this is a start in knowing why God hates sin and that it has nothing to do with giving Him some reason to punish us, or to kill our fun.

How To Become a Christian

I wrote some articles on the subjects of becoming a Christian, finding a church and baptism.

1. How Do I Become a Christian?
2. Now You're a Christian: The Next Step
3. ...And After That

I hope you find these articles helpful. The last two could use a little expansion.

Pride and Prejudice

In perhaps her most beloved novel Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen wrote, in chapter 5, in the voice of the character Mary,

"Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously. A person may be proud without being vain. Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves, vanity to what we would have others think of us."

Thinking about this, I suppose that she is right. On the whole, I'm more vain than proud. I am spurred on by my lack of regard for myself, and hope that others recognize my efforts, gifts and talents. I do not have great respect for myself, though there are things I like about myself. I would rather others have respect for me than that I should have respect for myself. I tend to dote on others' achievements, but in regard to my own, start with feet-shuffling and blushing, then feel guilty about my not downplaying anything I've done, enough. This is not merely show, though it does begin that way. Before long, I've talked myself into shame of demonstrating pride to another.

I think that vanity and pride are on a continuum of self-importance. Legalism leads to vanity, and "grace without requirement" leads to pride. I think that is why we must take the Gospel and the book of James, together.

We are given grace, and by definition, there are no strings attached. However, the consequence of grace is a longing to return some measure of the gift given to us. This shows that we have, indeed, received grace. I think that this is what James is saying, but I am not a theologian and haven't read James in a while.

Being able to say, "I am a worm," without any shred of vanity is a mark of having received grace. But how many of us can truly say that? How many of us can say, "I have received Christ" without any hint of pride? And if we concentrate on the constructs of our speech, hoping not to betray pride, are we being vain?

Being careful to always say the right thing--this is vanity. Refusing to change and thinking that no change is needed, or else that what we are is as good or better than what everyone else is--this is pride.

I think, really, these two issues have the same source, and only differ in respect to what angle we're working. Vanity is either a false front given to get something we think we deserve or pushing forward our achievements, however subtly, to get that recognition or reward. In the latter case, perhaps vanity is pride on viagra.

Pride, I think, rewards the self instead of seeking to elicit the reward from someone else. When we come to God, in search of His grace, it is because we can no longer be filled by our pride, and vanity is either completely unfulfilled, or like pride, no longer fulfills.

When we have received grace and still have vanity and pride issues, what do we do then? I think that we are supposed to find emotional sustenance in the love of the Lord. Self-esteem is the world's version of this. When God says, "You are so valuable, I will send my Son to die for you so that you can be with me," it means just that: we have value. This is different from self-esteem.

This is, instead, taking the Lord at His word. We can now say, "I was such a worm, before, and even then, God saw the value in me." The value is already there, and it is no more and no less than that belonging to any other human being. We have worth, but it does not come from ourselves, so it's inappropriate to call it "self-worth."

Rather, we seek to see ourselves with sobriety. Read for context 1 Peter 1:13. Consider praying to see yourself with sobriety, with clarity and discernment; this way, you may recognize what things need to change and what things need to stay the same, and start with the realization that we were fearfully and wonderfully made, that God values us in spite of our past, so much as to die for us, and consider jumping off the "self-esteem" bandwagon,  and be ready to accept every challenge as a challenge for God, and see our gifts and talents as those important assets that God has given us, protecting them from those who would steal or attenuate them.

This is not pride in self, but a recognition of the kind of God we serve. Let us boast in Him.

Regi G

Technorati Tags: Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen, Bible, self-esteem, self-worth

Christian's Prayer and Science

Obviously, I am a Christian, and I obviously claim to be a [student] scientist.

This has not changed. I've been through some major storms, personal storms that everyone experiences, some of my own making (sin) and some storms that have a unique angle for every individual (doubt).

I have just come through all of these to the power of ten. Perhaps it's not the worst storm that could have been, nor is the resolution complete, but it hasn't been easy, trying to hang on to my faith in the face of evolutionary mantra. But I have done it. Or rather, it's held on to me.

Do I believe in God, Jesus and the whole Bible hooplah? Yes, I do. And this is why: in the darkest place of my severest doubt, when I could barely think anything other than that I was becoming a skeptic, I did not pray. I have prayed my whole life, but I just couldn't bring myself to pray. I could barely stand corporate worship. It seemed so fake. I would look at others and it seemed like a show. For some, I still believe it was. I needed to see genuine faith to keep mine, and I did.

There are cynics, scientist and non-scientist, who bet their futures, their belief, on the fact that all who worship God, or even a god, are fake. Yet, I don't believe these people allow themselves to know Christians and to find those who have genuine faith. But this is a tall order, and it's risky, so I understand why many don't do it, why they throw up their hands and shout to heaven, "Forget it!"

I almost did the same thing, and I was a genuine Christian for over half my life.

Then, through the love and faith of my sister-in-law, my cynicism began to slough off.

My belief came to the point of, "Well, we can't prove there is no God, and I think there is one, but I'm just not for sure. I'll pray anyway, because it's a comfort to me, and even if the prayer isn't being heard, and all it does is focus my mind, it can't hurt."

But, I have to say that there is a huge difference in outcomes for people. Some disingenuous people use prayer to get what they want out of life, and nothing more. Obviously, some don't even pray. There are a few, of whom I hope I am one, who pray, not just for what they want, but what they think is God's will, and this type of praying yields proof-positive results, in an unscientific way, that is. This is an individual thing--one must try it, live it, believe it, for it to be known to be true. That's the odd thing about it.

A characteristic of some of these prayers' answers is the immediacy that comes with them. Some of the prayers I've prayed were out of desperation. Immediately, I become filled with peace, or my thought patterns change, completely, or I get some sort of call out of nowhere. This happened today. To me, this says that there is no time for me to direct my focus and induce the change myself.

Another characteristic of the answers to prayer such a one receives is that the means are rarely ever how they were expected to be, and the outcome is always much more meaningful or complete than supposed. It may take a life-time to render, to see the prayer answered, but sometimes, you can see little ways in which it is being answered, and again, some of these are immediate.. It never has to do with the one praying getting what they think they deserve.

Now, that is not to say that I've never prayed a selfish prayer. I have, many times. I've even prayed that someone "get theirs." But the prayer is only rarely answered the way I expect, and someone "getting theirs" turns out to teach me lessons I didn't want to learn.

This was true before my deepest doubt, it was lost during it, and it's true now. I'm still climbing out of the whole I made for myself, though, and the one made for me--prying those nails out of the coffin. To me, I'm kind of like the knockout mouse, which is performed over several generations of mice, though, and there's only one me.

Also, this fact for me may be experienced in other religions, as well. I would have to speak to someone from another religion to know anything about that. Christians are directed to pray God's will, though, so I can see how that may be specific to us. I fully believe that God has made a way for everyone to believe in Him and that none will perish without fully rejecting Him, which means full knowledge of Him that is necessary for such a decision.

Life is never easy. Prayer has made a huge difference for me.

Praying for Steven Curtis Chapman & Family

Hook, Line, and Sinker

Professor Chai, my professor of Molecular Biology, is from China. The first day in class, Prof. Chai said, "I really want you to focus on the concepts. That's what I want for you: to really understand Molecular Biology and be able to apply what you learn." I rolled my eyes. Promises, promises. I've heard it before.

Lo! and Behold! Hark! Test 1, Regi G scores 102. Wow! I finally got a professor that teaches to the way I think: conceptually. No massive memory work, save for remembering the topics and how the ideas go. No hours upon hours of studying, and I haven't, yet. No piles and piles of notes. I'm actually learning from the lectures! Which is great, because I do have a family.

What is the price of an A and nearly complete understanding on a silver platter? Hecklers. Yeah, no kidding. My classmates are heckling and badgering my professor. "You're so hard, Prof. Chai." "Give us the questions to the test, Prof. Chai." "You're too philosophical, Prof. Chai." My favorite: "You don't test based on the lectures, Prof. Chai." *bu-crp!* "Gesundheit." "Thank you."

Why? What is going on, here? I think what has happened is that our brains have turned to mush. I mean really. Tell us the questions that will be on the test???? We already don't even need the book.

This guy has been studying for 20 years, and he has 5 degrees of separation from the father of Molecular Biology. How could you get better than that?

Well, I don't know Prof. Chai's beliefs beyond, "I don't believe in Jesus, so I'm doomed." However, he doesn't just buy into everything, either. He's a true thinker, as I hope that indicates I am, as well, since I can pass his tests.

When Prof. Chai talks about the textbook (by Dr. James D. Watson--yes, THAT Watson), he says things like, "Why do they start at this point and talk about it a lot, even though it isn't really a good place to start? Because WE DON'T KNOW much about the stuff at the end!" and "This is the point where I attribute this to God, because it's so...it makes no sense." I don't know that this indicates true belief, but he makes no beans about what we do not know. He evaluates and scrutinizes and encourages us to do the same.

However, I don't think many of the students want to do that. Cowards. They sit in class being spoon-fed and then complain that they are not spoon-fed. What happened to critical thinking? Is this why many science students lose their faith? Even Prof. Chai seems to have difficulty with "evolution did it," at points, so why should we buy all this stuff, hook, line, and sinker?

Has science really become about being brain-dead, not considering our beliefs deeply where science applies, or considering science where faith applies, learning how to work a machine and looking up medications in a book on the job? (I saw my doctor do that, once, btw. Somehow, I never managed to make it back.)

(checking for typos? ar there eny? Nope. Okay. Publish.)

Behe and Wikipedia

Why is it that the critics are the ones that write the articles at Wiki? The one on Dr. Behe is the most biased I think I've ever seen.

The writer of the article states:

After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court barred the required teaching of creation science from public schools but allowed evolutionary theory on the grounds of scientific validity, creationists felt that new strategies and language was necessary to return religious notions to science classrooms.

What has this to do with Dr. Behe? Did he decide this? And is this, in fact, what Creationists have done? I'm a creationist and I must have missed that memo.

Scientists argued that Behe's comments and examples were based only on a refined form of "argument from ignorance", rather than any demonstration of the actual impossibility of evolution by natural processes.

I would like a full quote, please.

gaining maximum publicity while avoiding peer-review from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his statements

Isn't it conjecture to put this goal onto Dr. Behe? How does the author know that Behe was avoiding peer review? Perhaps he knew it wouldn't get "peer review" in the usual sense. Nevertheless, his peers have reviewed it.

Furthermore, his conclusions are being evaluated, whether by him or others, as other scientists develop experiments to test his idea. That is science in its truest form. Just because Dr. Behe is not the one creating new test, that doesn't mean his idea is not scientific. Many scientists have come up with ideas and did not develop the experiments to confirm or nullify the hypothesis. Should we crucify Behe because he is one of them (besides for the fact that, as of this moment, I do not know that anyone has shown that the bacterial flagellum has any parts it does not need).

Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer frustrates scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously motivated critics of evolution.^[

The idea is Irreducible Complexity. As far as I know, that doesn't require the declaration of the Designer. Irreducible Complexity is the science of it, not identification of who developed the complexity.

Later on, in 2003, Doolittle's lab published a paper in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, ^[20] which demonstrates that the pufferfish lacks at least three blood clotting factors, and still is a workable system, defeating a key claim in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex'.

I'm currently reading Behe's book. This, I have to say: just because he "missed" on one item (and this example does not really demonstrate a miss) does not doom his idea. In fact, we've seen that with Darwin and the Cambrian Explosion. This doesn't demonstrate a miss, because at some level, Behe expects to find a component of blood clotting that is irreducibly complex. Is it?

Just because the pufferfish's clotting ability is more simple than a mammal's does not mean that the pufferfish's ability is reducible. Maybe it is. I wouldn't know. That is the process of science though, because Behe's idea is leading to more experiments, ie., peer review.

Numerous scientists have debunked the work, pointing out that not only has it been shown that a supposedly irreducibly complex structure can evolve, but that it can do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions, and noting that Behe & Snoke's paper does not properly include natural selection and genetic redundancy.

Debunked in what way? Debunking by arguments from real science or arguments on the process of science or arguments from philosophy? I do not see evidence that this idea has been debunked. Albeit, I am still a student and taken up with my studies, but even if this claim is valid, that doesn't mean that the idea still can't be evaluated by science.

I say all of this, not because I think we should declare the designer in public schools, but because the freedom of thought that Behe has wisely expressed (not in peer-review, because of the professional backlash that comes with such) is in jeopardy when scientists call something "unscientific," ridicule the source of the idea saying they refused to subject the idea to review (with the connotation that it was underhanded), and then design experiments to evaluate a claim or conclusion that was so "unscientific" to begin with. If this is how we treat scientists and scientific ideas, what a sad state of affairs it must be to be a scientist.

No one saddens me more than Richard Dawkins. His name-calling is so beneath the profession, so beneath the logic of scientists that I shudder when I read anything by him. He seems to be driven to ridicule anyone who thinks differently from him. He's a Crusader of the worst type. Though this article is about Dr. Behe, it is really about so much more. It is about suppression. It may have been better for Dr. Behe that he not have published this book. Maybe not. I'm glad he did, whatever the case.

I also must say that I appreciate Lehigh University where Dr. Behe works, at this time, anyway. They say they respect Behe and his ideas, even if they do not agree with and reject them. That, I understand. Persecution, in the form of Richard Dawkins and lies or innuendo about Dr. Behe's character and goals, I do not understand.

Regi G

CS Lewis, The Dawn Treader and Malacandra

I knocked out both The Voyage of the Dawn Treader and Out of the Silent Planet in about a week and then a night. I have difficulty with reading and writing reviews, because I don't want to give the plot away. I think I have succeeded in avoiding that, and hope that what you read here will encourage you to read or reread these books.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is vying for my favorite of the Narnia series. From the marvelous opening line to the last adventure, the book keeps the reader enthralled to see what will come next. The overall message of the Narnia books, the theology within them was greatly increased by this book, and I found myself stewing on the message for a few days after. It is an effective, adventurous story, perhaps the best in the series. The nugget of truth here was not lost in all the excitement.

Out of the Silent Planet took me about five hours to read, and well worth the time, even if all you want to do is find out why a planet is silent...and why others aren't. Lewis introduces more mysteries that he answers as the story progresses. Can you figure out where all the places and who the good guys are?

In the middle of that fun, Lewis explores an interesting take on theology. I believe it to be a work of fiction, but it makes you think about the state of our world in a new way. Even the just man is unjust, by admission. Besides for all this, Lewis makes short work of imagery, but he uses it so well, the lack of words is not noticed because the mental image is so well constructed, as with the Narnia stories. If you can find one, I recommend a version of this book that does not show an image on the cover. Mine did, which took away some of the thrill of trying to realize where everything is. Of course, the cover art is very interesting, as well, which may convince those who have not read my review (inconceivable!) to give the book a go.

Taken together, these books, reveal that Lewis is a thinking man who uses imagination to draw interesting parallels between the real world and the ones born in his mind. The parallels call into question who we are, the state of the world, God, justice and mercy, putting them on the floor to be examined by the readers. Even those that do not wish to think of all of these things will be spellbound by his personal and descriptive relation of the stories, with which nearly anyone can identify.

Regi G

Redeeming Darwin

Wow! This is the name of the class I'm taking at church that started this evening. Wonderful class.

My church runs a private school and has, apparently, some top-notch teachers. I had to agree with everything the class leaders said. These are not hard-liners against Darwin's 2 tenets: 1. Descent with modificaton 2. by means of natural selection. I was very glad of that. I have to agree with natural selection. Natural selection just is. We do selection, all the time. We choose which traits we want in our plants (seedless grapes, anyone?), our animals (Jack Russell? Thoroughbred?), and our children (spousal selection).

Descent with modification is a little tougher, although we can see how things are different, even within humans. We have to believe that, at least within species, there have been changes that bring us the wonderful variety of humans, and other creatures, that we see.

Believing in these two tenets may make one an evolutionist, but it doesn't make one a non-Christian. It also doesn't mean that one believes in all that evolution has become.

I may continue on with more ideas later. I hope I do. For now, I have a quiz and test to prepare for.

One more thing: Bravo, Ben Stein! He highlights one of the pillars of science, which will never be a theory/fact, but always the method and its freedom. If we can't ask questions, are we ceasing to do science? http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Regi G