I’ve been creating and maintaining web sites for about 13 or 14 years now. In the mid-to-late 1990’s, setting up a new site was fairly straightforward as there were very few providers to choose from. In general, hosting companies also tended to be somewhat expensive.

Nowadays there are many good providers and some great hosting prices. But which provider is reliable and how long will they last?

The blog hosting company I used before I found my current provider was a mess. Run by a single person who seemed too depressed to respond to simple questions like, why is my blog not working properly?

I realized then reliability was just as important as price. And as knowledgeable as I am when it comes to the web, even I can’t keep up with all the changes. The fact is hosting prices and services offered, as well as levels of support, changes CONSTANTLY. It’s maddening, but it is what it is.

You can give up or you can find good sites that can reliably rate web hosting resources for you. One that I found recently, that I can also highly recommend, is Web Hosting Geeks, a web hosting rating site which rates resources on a variety of factors, so that you can find what you are looking for, all from a single site.

If you are looking to get the best bang for your buck, they have a page called “Best Budget Hosting.” If you’re an avid blogger like me — or want to become one — they have a great page on the best rated blog hosting companies.

It’s a great site and I highly recommend it.

I see that today, less than a month after Senator Obama told us he was against tapping the nation’s strategic oil reserves, he is now telling us he’s for tapping the reserves.   A major flip-flop, and one that he is trying to cover by accusing Senator McCain of being unduly influenced by “big oil.”

The problem is, right now, most Americans wouldn’t mind seeing “big oil” doing some more drilling.  Bigger oil, it seems to me, would translate into smaller prices at the pump.  This is basic economics, the law of supply and demand, which Democrats do not seem to understand.

Ironically, Democrats continue to tell anyone who will listen that, when President Bush came into office, gas was just $1.50 per gallon. Fair enough. So why not let oil companies drill for more oil to move gas prices down again? And if oil companies truly are against drilling, why is it necessary to keep a congressional moratorium on drilling in place?

Two questions for which I would love to hear an answer.

I found out this week that I’ve taken so little vacation so far this year that I have to take at least three days in the next couple of months or lose it. So we’ve been thinking about where to go. One destination for us where we’ve been several times is Niagara Falls. We were there a few years back for a summer vacation and it was a lot of fun.

It was the first time our girls had ever been there and we spent the day looking around, visiting the falls, and then having dinner at the local Rainforest Cafe. And in August, when summers are the hottest here in Maryland, heading as far north as possible is always a good idea.

Of course, you Google various things and look for help to find hotels and activities, especially now that we have kids. One site that has been helpful isTrusted Tours & Attraction online travel guides. They cover several destinations of interest to us. They show quite a few fun things to do in New York as well as things to do in Orlando. Madame Tussauds tour also looked interesting. I noticed too that there’s a special promotion where you can win a $150 iTunes Gift Card by signing up for their newsletter. Bonus!

Is global warming a real phenomenon? It is virtually a certainty.

We know, for example, that General Washington and his troops at Valley Forge suffered terribly from the last stages of what is commonly called “The Little Ice Age.” This was an age of cooling that occurred between the 13th and 17th centuries and was largely responsible for the disappearance of Nordic culture and civilization in Greenland, if memory serves.

Since that period, we have seen a gradual trend upwards in global temperatures. Today, the consensus is almost universal that we are seeing a warming trend. Less of a consensus, however, is what impact humanity is having on that trend and what part CO2 (carbon dioxide) in this trend. Much of the global warming hysterics currently talks about a rise in CO2 leading to a rise in temps, but historic trends show exactly the opposite phenomenon. That is, we see a rise in temperature then a rise in CO2. If this is the case, it seriously undermines much of the doom criers say of human impact on global climate.

By far, one of the most intelligent and succint rebuttals to Al Gore’s climate horror flick, “An Inconvenient Truth,” is a video that I have linked to below for your viewing pleasure. Take a look and tell me what you think:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017380.php

Thanks to Power Line Blog for posting the video.

In Maryland, individuals met in Baltimore with members of the NAACP to blast lawmakers for not heading off the coming rate hike.  Why are they not blasting lawmakers for CREATING this rate-hike in the first place?  Better yet, why are we not kicking ourselves for not keeping a closer eye on our lawmakers and preventing this kind of foolishness?

Six years ago, it was Maryland lawmakers who forced a rate-freeze on BG&E and other energy companies.  So, after six years and a huge spike in both the demand for energy and the costs of providing energy to the community, the market is about to reassert itself with a resounding THUD!

Even worse, the forced rate freeze engineered by Maryland’s General Assembly and signed by then-Governor Glendening has worsened conditions in Maryland for the coming price-correction.  The legislation enacted in 1999 was based on a whole host of assumptions, none of which, it seems, have proven to be correct.

This is what happens when governments assume they know how to positively influence markets.  Any private company would be shut down immediately, with all of its officers handcuffed and taken to secret CIA detention centers in Eastern Europe, no doubt, for doing what the Maryland GA has done.

What the Maryland GA basically said in 1999 was, “we know the future, and we can make it better.”  It reminds me of the 1992 Presidential election, when Clinton and Gore roundly criticized then-President George HW Bush for refusing to support the regulation of cable TV prices.

The President and VP repeatedly warned voters that this kind of tampering would only make matters worse.  Their solution?  Open markets up; allow greater competition, and prices would stabilize and/or drop.

Soon after Clinton won the election, a Democratic Congress passed legislation to regulate cable prices and Clinton joyfully signed on.  And cable customers were shocked to find that, in many cases, their cable rates went up, not down.

When will lawmakers learn, in a free society, with open markets influenced by literally millions of constantly fluctuating variables, the best you can do is try and keep the system honest and free of corruption, and then let consumers decide what they want and what they are willing to pay when it comes to goods and services.

The biggest problem, of course, is that lawmakers react to voters, and too many voters have no idea what is going on.  And Maryland is a perfect case in point.

Now we are angry with the GA for not figuring out how to legislate this disastrous situation…  A situation that only exists today because of bad legislation on the part of the GA in the first place!  And it is very likely that voters hailed this same legislation six years ago.

And thus completes the perfect circle of insanity.

Energy advocacy groups have been warning lawmakers for years that this legislation was going to create more problems than solutions.  A normal market would have produced two changes in the energy market, new options for conserving energy and new options for bringing energy to homes and businesses.  But none of that happened.

But let me now practice what I preach and say that the primary responsibility for this and other energy problems in the US lies, not with our local, state, or federal government, but with ourselves.  If voters were better informed (and I include myself in this group) and kept a closer eye on their elected officials, such issues would rarely arise.

Are we going to learn from all of this, contact our elected officials, and tell them to stop meddling?  Doesn’t look that way, not with voters demanding action from Congress in dealing with spiking gas prices.

Here we go again!

My favorite conference in the world, Learning 2005, kicked off tonight here in Orlando, FL. I thought I would blog my notes every evening.

Masie traditionally holds his conferences here in Orlando late in the year every year. In the past, his TechLearn Conference was the conference I would attend, but he sold that in recent years and has kicked off a new series called, simply, “Learning.” This year, of course, it is “Learning 2005.”

I LOVE this guy’s conferences. I love flying in to Orlando and checking in to the hotel, knowing that, ahead of me, I have three days of fascinating talks, events, and opportunities ahead of me. And I’ve been waiting for MONTHS for this one.

The Learning 2005 Conference kickoff events on Sunday usually set the tone for the whole conference. Every year I wonder how Elliott Masie, of the Masie Center, can outdo previous years and every year he finds a way.

This year, my family and I arrived early so that we could spend Saturday and part of Sunday, before the conference kickoff in the evening, at Disney. I walked from the hotel room to the conference area earlier today to check in and get my badge and conference stuff that I always get (a conference bag and various things from learning companies).

I checked in, but, oddly enough, I also wound up rapelling. When I went into the room set aside for conference check ins, there was a HUGE rapelling wall there as well. I guess this is the ultimate in “experiential learning.” And, seeing as how I’m totally gung ho for this kind of learning, I thought I would give it a try. I did manage to get a little more than half way up the wall before I had to rapel back down. Not bad for a complete novice.

Beyond that, the kickoff this evening was interesting as always. Here as some of my thoughts and comments:

FIRST THOUGHT: The conference began with a story by Elliott Masie of meeting a new employee, fresh from college. He is not into traditional company orientation programs (neither am I, by the way) and decided just to take the new employee to Starbucks for a sit-down and a conversation about the company and her new role.

The new employee didn’t want to do it. Instead, she asked if everything he was going to relay might be on a CD or something.

The long and the short of it was, this new employee was used to learning via the Internet. She’s a chat expert, used to using Google to find information, and email to her is ancient technology.

In other words, socializing on that level is not a comfortable dynamic for her. Rather, she is used to communicating virtually, not in the actual world, and since most communication is either body language or tone of voice, it is quite possible that real communication was too uncomfortable.

At least, that’s MY story.

So, what does this mean? Perhaps that people in my profession, corporate learning, will soon have to incorporate basic communication skills training into their lexicon of courses. Social skills training for the digitally “ept” and socially inept.

MASIE CENTER LEARNING AWARDS:
-CNN: Grace Dyson, Director of Learning(?) at CNN was awarded the first honorable mention from Elliott Masie for “Inspirational Learning.”

Elliott had been visiting CNN right around the time Katrina hit and he talked about Katrina reporting, all ofthe feeds which were coming in and reports from “citizen journalists.”

What Elliot didn’t ask was how CNN and other news organizations vetted the information coming in. This is an important point in my opinion because every network struggled with this aspect of Katrina. Eyewitness accounts were grossly misleading.

So what do we do about this now that we know how poor a job “citizen journalists” can do? Are there ways to rank the information on a reliability scale that helps news sources insert information into their regular news feed at the right time?

I think this is the ONLY real way to go. The stories generated during the Katrina disaster, which were faithfully echoed by every network on cable and regular TV were all completely wrong. There has to be a way from keeping those who report the news out of the news, if you know what I mean. They should report, not become the subject of reports because of their reporting.

Overall, CNN seems to have done a really phenomenal job helping people to learn on the job. Making the learning very hands on and very relevant to their jobs. Exactly the kind of learning that we need to focus on as an industry, if you ask me.

The second award went to “eLearning For Kids,” a global non-profit foundation which is attempting to provide high quality, engaging curricula world-wide for free. Uses gaming style designs to keep children engaged. I think this is an approach that is long overdue. The fact is software companies have been making money for at least a decade now by designing educational games for children. Kids take to computers easily, so designing friendly courses online for children is the right way to go.

For those of you out there who, like me, have young children, Zoo Tycoon was given an honorable mention by one of four children who were with the foundation’s President to speak about their learning experiences.

Boston Scientific was the third company which received an award. They make
medical equipment and have helped to innovate the medical field in many ways.

One of the interesting topics of their discussion was in regards to health wikis which are out there. Apparently, there are tons of online resources. The gentleman speaking on behalf of his company gave a great tip regarding working with your doctor. He mentions that we can help ourselves by writing down our health history as it applies to whataver you are going to speak with a doctor about. It’s the best way to aid them in making a proper diagonsis.

That’s all for this evening. More coming tomorrow!

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Alright, here is my second post in a row on the issue of “Intelligent Design.” If you want to know more of what ID is all about, then please read my previous post on the subject, “Intelligent Design is Everyday Science.”

I’m posting this in response to a rather reactionary piece posted to one of my favorite online Mags, National Review Online (NRO). As a matter of fact, it is one of the few publications to which I subscribe — the WSJ and the NY Times being two others.

That said, an article by John Derbyshire, “Teaching Science: The President is wrong on Intelligent Design,” was SO poorly written, that I wanted to at least post my counter-points to Mr. Derbyshire’s arguments. It’s not my purpose to call Mr. Derbyshire names or engage in ad hominem attacks upon him, he is, after all, a real journalist, whereas I’m just a blogger.

An avid blogger to be sure, but a mere blogger none-the-less.

And just to clarify, I’m not trying to be sarcastic in referring to Mr. Derbyshire as a “real journalist.” He is that, and I’ve read many of his articles and agreed with him on many points. But on the issue of Intelligent Design (ID), I must conclude that he is, unfortunately, regurgitating arguments and talking points which he’s acquired from defenders of the Darwinian Faith. And truly, many aspects of Darwinism must be taken on faith, as I will discuss in this post.

So, in his article, when Mr. Derbyshire calls ID a “psuedoscience” and compares it to crackpot theories which are religious or mystical in nature, I can only assume that he knows little of ID theory but has chosen merely to slam it based on comments from those who are earnestly seeking to derail a robust and increasingly popular theory related to the origins of life. But lets exam just Mr. Derbyshire’s arguments and talk to them:

• Mr. Derbyshire tries to quell the debate over the whether ID should be taught in schools by referring to the need for “Consensus Science” in the classrooms. Consensus science? Sounds to me more like “bureacratic science,” or “democratic science,” if you want to give the whole concept a positive spin. In other words, sounds like institutional thinking to me. When I Googled the term “Consensus Science” I found that nearly the entire first page of returned links were all to articles, speeches, and blog posts from academics and others who were, in no uncertain terms, denouncing this concept altogether. Michael Crichton says this of consensus science:
  

  I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.

  Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge, retired Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, and former Chief Research Scientist of the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research says this:

  Consensus is not science. Consensus tends to the politically correct. Consensus is not the sort of thing on which sensible people put their money.

  So, while this concept might sound reasonable on its face, really the concept of consensus science is more of an oxymoron than a school of thought. Ultimately, teaching only consensus science must result in the stagnation of science itself. Science must only rely on facts, not on opinion. Which is why, if there is true science behind ID theory, as I’ve explained, then it can be legitimitely taught in the classroom.

  Ironic that I, a proponent of ID theory, should be reminding Mr. Derbyshire of the way science is supposed to work, don’t you think?

  Nuff said there.

• Next, Mr. Derbyshire asks the question:
  

  And what should we teach our kids in biology classes, concerning the development of living things on earth? We should teach them Darwinism, on exactly the same arguments. There is no doubt this is consensus science… It means teaching science unskeptically, as settled fact.

  I won’t argue on the point that Darwinism is the consensus science of our age when it comes to origin of life theories. What I will argue, however, is whether or not all of Darwinian Evolution is based in science.

  The questions I constantly ask and challenge readers to ask as well are along the lines of, why is Darwinism so dogmatically defended by some, even to the point of forcing out all other viewpoints from the debate? Also, why does evolution remain so controversial, even among evolutionary scientists, biologists, geneticists, and the like. In your attempts to answer these quesions, here are a few points to consider:

  1. There must be MORE than merely a critical mass of scientists willing to question a prevailing theory. There must also be a viable alternative theory which better explains certain phenomenon in a measurable way. Can ID Theory do this? Absolutely, but not if it is to be censored like the “round Earth” theory was a thousand years back!
  2. Should darwinism, as Mr. Derbyshire argues, be taught “conservatively [emphasis his], without skepticism or equivocation,” so as not to “confuse young minds”? Well, if it were considered a law, like Gravity, or some other scientific approach which is measurable, sure. But evolution is still a theory for a reason. So, in that light, Mr. Derbyshire’s comment almost sounds as if he’s asking us not to confuse those “young minds” with the facts.

     The fact is, darwinists themselves are at odds over exactly how their theory might be used to explain the origins of life. For example; darwinism cannot now and never could explain the APPEARANCE of life from lifelessness. In addition, as noted author and Berkeley Professor Phil Johnson once said, “Evolution is not controversial because it is entirely true or entirely false, but rather because part is true and part is false.” What did he mean by that? Simply that darwinism elegantly explains how species adapt — called “Microevolution” — but never has proven where and how one species has or could have evolved into an entirely different species — “Macroevolution.”

     Now, evolutionists will tell you without hesitation that their theory is true and right, but if you ask a number of them exactly how it all happened, you’ll get as many different theories and guesses as you will individuals. How can it be “true” and “right” if so many in their own discipline disagree? Evolutionary scientists have had well over a hundred years to gather evidence, yet evolution as a theory is more controversial than ever. Truly, if the proof were there, the world would know it. But it isn’t and we don’t.

  3. Mr. Derbyshire identifies evolution as a reputable science, the basis for modern biology and genomics, but I disagree. I think evolutionists have borrowed on the reputation of truly modern and effective sciences in order to bolster their own position. The fact is, sciences such as genetics and biology do not need the theory of evolution to exist. Biology, after all, existed before evolution was proposed and genetics flowed naturally from the development and growth of that field and technology in general. But, as I mention somewhat in my earlier post, genetics also poses a growing challenge to evolution as well, because now we know that even microscopic life on this planet is enormously complex, irreducibly so. Meaning that much of life is so enormously complex and dependent upon a host of internal parts and systems all working in sync with one another that a precursor form is nearly impossible. So, how do evolutionists explain the problem of complexity? They MANIPULATE life in order to show how systems could change, failing to understand that they have just bolstered the claims of Intelligent Design, not blind materialistic forces.
  4. At the very least, lets teach the controversy. Darwinian Evolution is a theory, and MUST be taught as such. If you want to REALLY confuse kids, try teaching philosophy or religion in the science classroom. That is what proponents of evolution want. They don’t want sound, reasoned debate and a realistic look at the science, they want dogmatism.

Two last points; both important:

• As Steven Levitt, author of “Freakonomics,” tells us, if you want to understand why people are motivated to take certain action, take a close look at the underlying system of rewards. For a huge number of scientists, their research in this field is all funded by large government and private donor grants. We are talking, very likely, tens of billions spent over the past 100+ years for evolutionary research. To see Darwinian Evolution discredited might well mean the loss of jobs and tenure for tens or hundreds of thousands of researchers all over the world. And I’m not exaggerating here. Evolution is THE dominant theory on the origins of life, for it to topple would be devastating to the academic community. With that kind of positive and negative incentive, why would evolutionary scientists WANT to level the playing field? That and the fact that many scientists in this discipline area are either agnostic or athiest in their belief system. To allow a scientific theory to grow which could lend support to an intelligence of any kind beyond our own would be similarly disquieting.
• Darwinian Evolutionists have been dishonest in the way they define the term “science.” To someone in this camp, science can only be used to explain the blind, materialistic forces we can see and measure in the universe. But science cannot be used to identify and/or measure any kind of intelligence. In redefining science this way, they can then claim that anything at all that tries to disprove evolution is “unscientific.” But here’s the problem with this argument… We have several sciences which exist right now which DO have the ability to detect and scientifically measure intelligent interactions in the natural world. Forensics is one, right? If someone is found lying dead in a pool of blood in their house, what happens? The crime scene investigators are called, of course. They dust for prints, they look for DNA other than that of the victim, they look for “suspicious” marks in the room or on the deceased person’s body, and likely a dozen other things. Why do they do all that? So that they can determine the time of death? No, because they want to know if the person died accidentally, through natural causes, or was murdered. If the body has, for example, 50 stab wounds, with nothing in the room which could have “accidentally” caused the wounds, then the complexity of the injuries leads to the logical and straightforward conclusion that the person was murdered. In the same way, if life on Earth is SO complex that its appearance and growth is statistically impossible, and if the fossil record shows us no conclusive transition forms, — much less the millions of forms which we should already have found both living and dead — and if we see in that same record events such as the Cambrian Explosion, where thousands of new species appeared in a relatively short period of time, then we may have evidence of intelligent design. Certainly, as we look down to the cellular, then genetic levels today, we do NOT have strong evidence of Darwinian Evolution.

And as our knowledge of life grows more sophisticated, the fact is, traditional Darwinian Evolution is becoming gradually less able to so blithely explain the origins of all life on Earth. Not, at least, without of LOT of speculation, storytelling, and conjecture. But all of that, as Mr. Derbyshire so aptly points out, has no place in the science classroom.

Mr. Derbyshire is quick in his article to let us know that we should “not be afraid of science.” I wholeheartedly agree. He should practice what he preaches.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Well, President Bush’s comment on August 2nd has certainly touched off an interesting firestorm. What words did he utter that led to this firestorm? When asked about the debate over teaching evolution in schools and competing theories, such as a new theory called “Intelligent Design,” the President said this: “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

Of course, proponents of philisophical materialism (Darwinists) immediately hit the airwaves to denounce the President’s “ignorance” on the subject and to insist that Intelligent Design (ID) Theory was just “another form of creationism.” Really, some of these science-types sounded almost desperate to quickly quell the controversy, which I imagine some of them really are.

What are these believers in all things material trying to hide? Or do they really just believe that the only REAL science is the study of the materialistic universe? I think you’d likely find many Darwinists who honestly believe that evolution is the likely explanation for life, the universe, and everything. But some really do want to quell this new approach called ID Theory.

Why? Because it employs real science and because, believe it or not, it is a completely valid and testable approach in terms of the scientific method.

So, for the uninitiated, what is ID? Intelligent Design is, basically, a theory which posits that life in all its forms here on planet Earth is a product of design. The theory does not try to offer conjecture regarding who the designer might be, instead, it uses modern science to show that the enormous complexity which most living organisms demonstrate could not have occurred “accidentally.” After over 100 years, evolution still cannot account for events such as the Cambrian Explosion, where thousands of species appear all at one time in the fossil record and all within a very short span of time. According to Darwin, such a thing could never happen in a series of gradual steps. So what could account for such an event?

I have no idea, but we should at least acknowledge such challenges to evolution rather than gloss them over. And we should let other scientists come to the table with competing theories; one of which happens to be ID.

So, how can we scientifically examine the possibility of an intelligent designer? Well, we have several very popular and sophisticated sciences which we already employ just for the purpose of detecting intelligence as well as intelligent causes, not just here on Earth, but out in the universe as well.

Here are a few examples:

• SETI (Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence): SETI is a program that most likely we’ve all heard of. SETI researchers use a series of radio receiver based all over the world to literally listen to “noise” generated by other stars and extra-terrestial phenomena out in space. What are they listening for? Basically, they are seeking signs of other intelligences sending radio signals into the galaxy to communicate with other species. How could we know if one noise is caused by an intelligence vs. another noise? Listen for patterns, of course, and computers are employed to do exactly that and to alert researchers if a pattern is ever detected. First we identify all the random noise which exists in a certain part of our galaxy, or another, then we wait and seek noise which may have a pattern or a rhythm that would be statistically unlikely to have occurred except through an intelligent cause
• Archeology - Archeologists work day in and day out to discern between the natural and the unnatural. They seek artifacts that could not possibly have been generated naturally in an environment and study them closely to determine their creation date, purpose, and perhaps even some characterstics of their makers. Truly, if it impossible to scientifically detect intelligence, archeologists would not be able to tell a boulder from a building… Right?
• Forensics - Not only is “CSI” a hugely popular show on television, it has spawned two other spin off shows as well, as well as numerous similarly patterned competitors on other networks. What is the central purpose of forensic analysis? To apply the scientific method to the detection of intelligence. Let’s say a husband dies suddenly in his home. Did his wife poison him? Did he die of a heart attack? Did he simply die of old age? All of these questions can be reliably, even routinely answered using the forensic sciences. We can test for chemicals not normally found in the human body. We can look for signs of a struggle, we can even examine the person’s innards to seek some natural system failure. Again, if science were unable to distinguish intelligent causes from natural ones, there would be no science of forensics.

Basically, the above sciences look for complexity. The more complex something is, the less likely it could have occurred randomly or accidentally. This, after all, is a known law in the universe. We’re talking the Laws of Thermodynamics here? First of all, as far as we’ve ever been able to tell, there is no new energy being created in the universe. Secondly, we know that energy, in all its forms, moves from higher levels of complexity to lower levels of complexity.

Thermodynamics alone poses an intractible problem for evolutionists. How can organisms of such complexity occur randomly when everything we know tells us that energy breaks down naturally, it does not build up?

Now let’s discuss a scientific theory posited by Michael Behe, a molecular biologist, which employs the ID model, called “Irreducible Complexity.” Here is Dr. Behe’s defintionof Irreducible Complexity:

In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

A system which meets Darwin’s criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional.

What are some irreducible systems?

• The human eye
• Proteins
• Cilium

In each of these systems, the complex biochemical interactions which must occur in a precise way, in alignment with other similary precise yet complex systems, could never have occurred randomly, at least not in the time currently allowed by scientists who have been researching the age of the earth. I’ve read many scientists who have attempted to pooh pooh Irreducible Complexity and ID in general, but none of them have ever successfully, to my knowledge, demonstrated how irreducibly complex systems could ever have occurred natural in random steps… Not one!

This post is getting long, so let me wrap it up by saying that I’m not one of those who wants evolution taken out of schools. I believe firmly that it should be taught, along with the debate which centers around evolution, as well as some of the challenges which still remain for this theory. I also think that other theories should be discussed. ID is one of those.

ID employs everyday sciences that we all know of, and you don’t have to talk of a designer in the science classroom, just stick to the science behind the theory. Ultimately, this theory IS gaining traction; something which has hard core evolutionists (whose religion is metaphysical naturalism), in somewhat of a tiff. How dare ANYONE challenge their beloved theory, much less the serious scientists who are now beginning to step forward and offer their challenges?

All I can is, this should be fun to watch.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Here is an excerpt from yesterday’s “Best of The Web Today,” edited by James Taranto:

In September the Daily Nebraskan, the student newspaper at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, published a column by Derek Kieper that argued against mandatory seat-belt laws:

As laws become increasingly strict for seat belts, fewer people will respond positively by buckling up in response to the laws. There seems to be a die-hard group of non-wearers out there who simply do not wish to buckle up no matter what the government does. I belong to this group. . . .

Telling me to wear my seat belt is the same as making sure I have some sort of proper education before diving into a swimming pool. If I want to dive in without knowing how to swim, that is my right. And if I want to be the jerk that flirts with death and rides around with my seat belt off, I should be able to do that, too.

The Lincoln Journal Star reports the sad ending of the Kieper story:

Kieper, a 21-year-old senior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, died early Tuesday morning when the Ford Explorer he was a passenger in travelled off an icy section of Interstate 80 and rolled several times in a ditch. . . . Derek, who was thrown from the vehicle, was not wearing a seat belt.

When you flirt with death, you run the risk that death has something more serious in mind.

My apologies to his family, but this person died for a foolish cause.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com