When Roe v. Wade occurred in 1973, the womb was a black box, and what was
actually going on in there was anybody’s guess. It was easier to talk in terms
of a woman’s rights as being the only rights involved. Today, with new
technology such as 4D
Ultrasound, we can literally see the live baby in motion, and the question
of rights is broadened. If we had had 4D Ultrasound in place before 1973, would
the case have been determined differently? I suggest that is quite likely, so
the next question is, why doesn’t it simply reverse the case now? The doctor who
agreed to allow filming that became The Silent Scream, after viewing what he had done, never again performed
another abortion. Perhaps some day there will be enough back lash to recognized
the rights of the yet-born, but there is a huge momentum to overcome. Think of
all the men and women who in ignorance, or upon the insistence of well-meaning
friends and family, or because of their own personal predicament "exercised
their rights." How are they to reconcile with themselves this evidence? To say
the law must be changed is to say "I have been wrong all these years." With
every abortion there is pressure to never look back, regardless of the mounting
facts. This is not necessarily intentional, it may not even be conscious; it is
just human nature. (It is not my point here, but I cannot go on without saying
that the only solution to this cognitive dissonance is the acceptance of
total forgiveness from a loving God.) It is not simply a latter of logic and
facts.

The same question could be asked of Darwinian evolution: If
the theory had not been proposed until today, with today’s facts, would the
theory be the slam dunk that evolutionists claim? It might have some traction,
but it could be well argued that it would not have the grip it now has on
scientific thinking. When Darwin published Origin of the Species, 
the cell was a jelly ball with a hard center, easily conceivable as just a hop,
skip, and a jump away from mud. Today we know that no cell exists without an
instruction booklet of no less than 400,000 letters. So, why not just drop it?
Because of the investment in the doctrine by huge numbers of scientists whose
reputations are on the line. How easy is it for scientists around the world to
simply say, "Oh well, I guess the last 30 years of my publications were wrong?"
The evidence for evolution is not overwhelming. It is just non-negotiable. This
is not necessarily intentional, in may not even be conscious; it is just human
nature. Will the tide some day turn? I really don’t know, because the problem is
not one of logic or facts.

The person with whom I was
corresponding replied: “Comparing living organisms to things that people design
and build, as creatinists [SIC] often do [SIC] makes for an extremely poor
analogy and weak argument from the creationist side. Reproduction is very unique
to life; objects that we produce do not reproduce themeselves [SIC], and if they
could they would evolve as computer models have demonstrated. Reproduction, the
success of which is heavily reliant on environmental conditions, is key to
evolution.”

I did not address this argument on You-Tube, because it was off the subject.
The subject was that the professors on
my dissertation committee would not hear me out on less-than-full endorsement of
Darwinian evolution, regardless of my arguments.

Even so, the question raised deserves discussion somewhere, so I’ll do it here:

There are three phenomenon that easily can be compared between the theory of evolution of organizations (called
population ecology in the organization science literature) and the theory of
evolution of organisms (particularly, Darwinian evolution). These are a) the
generation of new types, b) the survival or demise of types, and c) the
proliferation of surviving types. My objector has rolled them together. Some
confusion is avoided by recognizing them as distinct. I will discuss them one at
a time in reverse order:

c) Organisms are indeed unique in
how they reproduce—A set of DNA is read and duplicated automatically upon
certain preconditions being met. But organizations are also reproduced. Not only
do the original builders of an organization tend to build more organizations
based on their initial success, but also other people see what works and copy
it. This is so “natural” that copyright and other infringement laws must be made
to protect some processes organizations do. For our purposes we can set aside
reproduction as a “uniqueness” in comparing organisms with organizations.

b) Organisms must survive in a
less-than benevolent environment. They must access specific materials (be they
oxygen, carbon-dioxide, water, food, whatever) from the environment, and what
they give off must be received by the environment without fouling it; or the
organism will perish. Organizations, by comparison, must receive raw materials
and financial profits, by producing products and services for which the market
is willing to pay; or the organization will perish. This is key to population
ecology theory, which argues that the “survival of the fittest” accounts for the
populations of organizations that we find at any given time and place. For our
purposes we can set aside survival as a “uniqueness” in comparing organisms with
organizations.

a) Organisms change to some extent
from generation to generation. I do not look exactly like my parents, but this
can be entirely accounted for in the mix of DNA between my two parents. Setting
this aside, mutations occur, which increase the options in the survival mix; and
may introduce permanent change in the organism type, if it helps the organism
“win” in the fight for survival. (An example would be
cycle-cell, which enhances survivability in the presence of malaria.) It may
also be the case that mutations increase variations that may not affect survival
(hair, eye, and skin color). Organizations likewise differ from generation to
generation of organization, because founders make mistakes in copying former
organizations. But they also differ from those that came before because the
creators intentionally make changes, thinking through and projecting what might
work better in the changing economic environments.

On this point organization change
has a leg-up on organism mutation, which has no such creative option. Darwinian
theory denies any opportunity for forethought or “purpose” in the generation of
change. There can be no goal in sight, not even survival. Organizations can not
only change from generation to generation, but organization change can take
place without an existing organization. (I teach courses on how this is done.)
Even though major reengineering and restructuring of organizations is difficult
and complex, it is a far cry more possible than an organism deciding to have
more legs or less gills. (No, tadpoles don’t count. They were programmed from
conception to make that change, and it is repeated every generation without
permanent change.)

In my dissertation committee I
never said that evolution was not a useful or defendable position; I simply said
that the theory of evolution works better when applied to organizations than to
organisms. Regardless of what one chooses to believe about evolution of
organisms, it should be clear that it is easier to support survival of the
fittest as a mechanism for continuous change among organizations than it is
among organisms. If this is denied, I don’t see how it can be done on the basis
of logic. And if not logic, then what?

I used to dislike history more than any other required
subject in school, because the whole thing was just memorizing ransom dates and
wars. It wasn’t until I took a(nother) required church history class under
Kenneth Scott LaTourette that it all began to make sense. History is one
continuous story. Not only that, but it also has one continuous plot. Why is the
Middle East always in the news? No, it’s not the oil. That only accounts for
interest in the last 100 years. What about the previous 5,000?
Watch the 90-second video again if needed: Israel is always in the center–a
country with no natural harbor, no vast mineral reserves, no corner on any world
market, just the most fought-over land in the world. Why?

And then there are the people themselves. There is no other
people who lost their nation, were dispersed around the world, and yet continued
to exist as an entity for more than a few hundred years. The Jews remained a
distinguishable people for 1700 years before reclaiming their homeland in
1948. This in itself should be enough to conclude they are somehow unique,
but add to that the repeated and focused attempts to wipe them out, and the probabilities say
they are " chosen."

What can one do with these facts? We must either accept the
fact that history not only has a plot, but also a purpose; or we can deny the facts. Oh, but
there is another more powerful alternative besides accept or deny: ignore the
facts.

Probability is the foundation of scientific discovery, yet
it is ignored when it comes to evidence for God.

That understanding of human nature is most clear to me in Book 2, Chapter 2
of Democracy, where he addresses a subject that I wrestle with regularly
in my century–The inevitability (and value) of dogmatism.

According to de Tocqueville, not only are we all dogmatic,
we all must be dogmatic in order to think clearly and deeply. There are too many
things to think through, so we must trust someone else’s conclusions in order to
build and think completely about anything. Anyone who has traveled overseas, or
even into a variant of our own culture, has discovered how fatiguing it is to
simply go through the day: How and when does one cross the street? Which
direction does the traffic flow? What does a mail box look like? Things we
previously took for granted must now be thought about, draining our ability to
cope. So we in our daily lives accept as true many things we have not
investigated in order to think on other things. Our society is allowed to
accumulate knowledge, instead of reinventing the wheel every generation. This
serves us well more often than not. It is a good thing to trust and build on
trustworthy sources. But what happens when people trust the wrong source?

De Tocqueville draws another conclusion: The nature of
democracy leads people to depend more on majority thinking than on accumulated
experience.  "At periods of equality men have no faith in one another, by
reason of their common resemblance; but this very resemblance gives them almost
unbounded confidence in the judgment of the public; for it would seem probable
that, as they are all endowed with equal means of judging, the greater truth
should go with the greater number." In other words, majority thinking becomes
more powerful than experience handed down from our forefathers. History is lost.

That is a scary thought. And I’m afraid de Tocqueville has
predicted again the state of America and the free world. Those who can think,
must.

This last reference points out that the dating clearly
places the bones within our own (Homo sapiens) time, yet comparisons are
made with fossils, human and not, dated millions of years ago. Homo
floresiensis was buried with advanced tools, no sign of other humans around,
had a cranial shape that justifies analytical thinking, and must have gotten to
the isle of Flores by navigation. The only problem is the credibility of a
person three feet tall. So what?

Why can’t they just be recognized as short people, as in this
photo? Is the difference any greater than that between a
Chihuahua and a Great Dane? The only reason all domestic dogs are considered
to be the same species is that we watched the breading take place in modern
history. It doesn’t mean that they are two different species or even that they
are in the process of becoming two different species. They are just swimming in
different corners of the same gene pool.  Because evolutionists must find
differences to justify crossing from one species to another, we are led down
these rabbit trails that have never led to discovery, but have led to the
justification of one human mistreating another.
Humans is humans. Enjoy the variety.

The quote is from Daniel Dennett, and this particular web incorporates several ideas from
one of his books. Dennett is a strong evolutionist, but prefers to couch his
position about God as a benevolent acceptance that some people need God. This
particular site is more straightforward in positing that evolution removes ALL
need for God. Indeed, the purpose of the site is not to promote evolution as
much as to discredit God. Those who think evolution and the Bible are compatible
have yet to take one or the other, or both, seriously. This site does, and
begins its slideshow clearly stating its objective–to use evolution to make
"no room for God."

After supporting its position with quotes from those who
agree with their thesis, the next step is thestraw man approach: The
third slide positions all belief in fixity of species as Christian
(portrayed as the sum of all non-believers in evolution), even though it admits
that the idea originally came to Christendom via Aristotle. It also acknowledges
no other alternative to evolution for "Christians" than fixity of species than
fixity of species, even though Edward
Blyth, a Christian, first suggested to Darwin the idea of variance within
species. 

Slide four defines creationism as "the idea that God
created all species in their current form a few hundred years ago." I am aware
of no one who believes animals originated a few hundred years ago, much less the
major creationism proponents. And the major ones all agree that variation occurs
from generation to generation.

On slide five they begin their explanation of Darwin with natural selection as "Darwin’s most original contribution to biology." I must return to Blyth: in
1835 he published an article
in the Magazine of Natural History, in which he explains the principle of
natural selection, though not using the term: “It is a general law of nature,
for all creatures to propagate the like of themselves: and this extends even to
the most trivial minutiae, to the slightest peculiarities; and thus, among
ourselves, we see a family likeness transmitted from generation to generation.
When two animals are matched together, each remarkable for a certain
peculiarity, no matter how trivial, there is also a decided tendency in nature
for that peculiarity to increase, and if the produce of these animals be set
apart, and only those in which the same peculiarity is most apparent, be
selected to breed from, the next generation will possess it in a still more
remarkable degree; and so on, till at length the variety I designate a breed is
formed, which may be very unlike the original type.” (Eiseley, Loren C.
1959. Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection.
Proceedings of American Phil. Society.103(1059), 94-158, as reprinted in
Loren Eiseley’s Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X, 1979, New York: E. P.
Dutton, pp 55-56).

 The next couple of slides are dedicated to explaining
natural selection as the key to evolution. (I must interject here that you
cannot select anything unless something is there from which to select. There is no
discussion of where the something came from.)

Pages eight
through ten take on Design with Paley as the key witness, ignoring any design
arguments that have been developed in the past 150 years. In all, no formidable
arguments are presented for or against evolution. The only presentation is
opinions that favor their view.

My point here is not whether evolution is true or false,
but that the position is argued for religious reasons in some cases. Whether it
is in most or all cases, please consider the honesty of the arguments. That
honesty is crucial, and most obvious in disclosure of real facts, not quotes of
the opinions of others.

The CDC has good information on AIDS and
transmission of HIV, but you have to read between the lines to get what is
actually happening. It begins with the following:

HIV is spread by sexual contact with an infected person, by
sharing needles and/or syringes (primarily for drug injection) with someone who
is infected, or, less commonly (and now very rarely in countries where blood is
screened for HIV antibodies), through transfusions of infected blood or blood
clotting factors. Babies born to HIV-infected women may become infected before
or during birth or through breast-feeding after birth.

OK, so HIV is spread by sex, needles, blood transfusion,
during pregnancy, delivery, and breast feeding, six basic ways. Research has
documented many ways in which HIV is NOT spread, and these include casual
kissing, skin contact, mosquitoes,
pets , and toilet seats. It has rarely occurred by French kissing or biting,
and that was in the case of blood transfer.

It only spreads through the transfer of infected body
fluids. Which ones?"HIV is found in varying concentrations or amounts in blood,
semen, vaginal fluid, breast milk, saliva, and tears." Six body fluids, and the
article later makes clear that they are listed in the order in which
concentration is found. The fluids must be living, human fluids. Once the fluid
dries, it can not infect. It cannot reproduce itself outside of a host human.
(That’s why it’s called HUMAN Immunodeficiency Virus.) Environmental transmission
is "essentially zero." Finding the source of the epidemic requires some
detective work, but is quite logical.

"Contact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown
to result in transmission of HIV," so we are down to blood, semen, vaginal
fluid, and breast milk. Blood transfusions are quite safe now, because the virus
is relatively large and easy to filter from collected blood. Dirty needles are
used primarily in illegal contexts, so the epidemic is essentially traceable to
sexual contact.

It is a tragedy that some infants are born HIV positive or
catch it from the birth process or nursing. We need to find cures for their
sake, if no other, but this is not the infection responsible for the world-wide
epidemic. How did the mother become HIV positive?

Research
indicates that "women are very unlikely to pass HIV on  to another woman in
any sexual contact." There is minuscule transfer of body fluid, and infected
vaginal fluid is relatively low in concentration. That means that if we are
tracing the epidemic, the transfer is from a male to the female via sexual
penetration. How did the male become HIV positive?

It is possible for a male to catch HIV from a female,
more-so if the male is uncircumcised, but the risk is still low.
That means that in terms of an epidemic the male got it from another male. How
did the male get it from another male? We know that anal penetration is the highest sexual risk. Add to this that one can only catch HIV from someone who has HIV, and we know the culprit of the epidemic is male-male anal sex with multiple partners.

By coming to male-male transfer we complete the
investigation, because the cycle is endless at this juncture: There would be no
epidemic if male-male sex with multiple partners was halted.

The above argument does not condemn homosexual behavior in
general: the logic is not based on religion or morality. Regardless, the
conclusion is politically incorrect, because it lays the blame on a behavioral
"right." I am not so naive as to think we can simply say "stop," and it is done.
Epstein proposes a social solution. But it is not being done. Something is wrong
when a society that gives a "right" to a behavior that hurts the society.

Allow me to think out load about this: All organisms must
survive by processing organic compounds that only come from organisms. In the
absence of all other organisms, the first organism must have produced its own
food, because by definition there would be no other source. The simplest known
food-producer, upon which we are dependent, requires 2.000 genes of DNA code,
and it is suspected of originating from something more complex. Also, it seems
that as we go "down" the "tree of life," the organisms are in many cases more
distinct from each other, not less. I don’t see us getting any closer to an
accidental (random) origin of life.