My Views on the Evolution of Species

lifted from april93's blog

Mankind has been observing changes in various species our entire existence. In fact, mankind has caused much change both directly and indirectly. We have observed evolution in action.

Directly, we have caused the evolution of domestic animals. We selectively breed various animals to enhance their desirable traits, while minimizing less desirable traits. However, a dog is still a dog, whether it is a chihuahua or a rottweiler; and genetically speaking, they can still interbreed (although it might not be practical or likely).

Then there are spontaneous adaptive changes in response to changes in the environment. I call it Evolution by Cataclysm. Salt and pepper moths changing from being mostly light in color, to mostly dark in color with in a few generations is a famous example. They blend in with of trees to hide from birds and predators. Soot from factories during the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree bark, thus favoring the darker of their species. Unfortunately, this is a poor example of evolution, given that it was relatively sudden and in the face of near extinction, and most species die out instead of adapt to sudden environmental change. What's more, they are still salt and pepper moths, with no genetic change that would prevent darker moths from breeding with lighter moths.

Then of course is the classic view of creatures that started out the same, but split and migrated and became separated by vast distances, slowly adapting to separate environments and evolving over millions of years until they became so genetically distinct that they could no longer interbreed and became distinct species. This is what was taught to me as the Theory of Evolution (I had a habit of calling out my school teachers when they made the mistake of listing classic long term evolutionary theory as factual on tests, a habit that got me both punishment and commendation) As a theory it is not unscientific, in fact it's quite as an good alternative explanation if you want secondary opinions on the origin of species, besides Intelligent Design. The only problem I see is that, given the Earth's theoretically relative youth, it seems a statistical unlikelihood that such a large diversity of contemporary creatures had time to evolve.

I adhere to a Christian viewpoint of intelligent design, although I'm frequently first in line to question whether a day to God is literally our 24 hours. I also like to point out that while God spoke it and it was done, the scriptures are unclear as to the exact scientific or technological process. A belief in God does not necessitate a suspension of reason or science.

In a free society, we have the right to respectfully debate all ideas, whether they are Atheistic, scientific, Christian, well reasoned, crazy, or just stupid. The above is just my opinions based on what limited knowledge I have on the subject. Debate it if it pleases you. I know it pleases me and helps me learn something new.

I Still Disagree with the Supreme Court

I've only heard two stated reasons why LGBTs want marriage. 1 Love; however no mature people marry the people they love simply because they love each other. Marriage is not now, nor has it ever been about love, otherwise there would be no legal or social prohibitions on close relatives marrying, having multiple marriage partners; or marrying children, pets, inanimate objects, or corpses.

Argument number 2 involves financial benefits and inheritance issues. Really, says I. The obvious truth is that signing on to a work or business contract that does not provide benefits to your lover is your own fault, not the government's. What's more, while you may petition a private business owner to change the terms of the contract, he is under no legal obligation to do so. As for inheritance laws and death taxes, the government is morally wrong to override the written and notarized wills of the dead in most cases.

Change the law. Get the Federal Government out of the marriage business. They should not have the right to pick winners and losers in the marriage debate.

I have a theory why marriage is being so hotly challenged, and it has nothing to do with love or financial incentives, but everything to do with communism.

From the 45 Goals of Communist Takeover of America

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

It seems to me broadening the definition of marriage to include gay and lesbian relationships is well in line with these two goals.

This is Me Angry and Confused at the Supreme Court

Dear NSA,
This is what I want from the Fed regarding marriage laws, definitions, benefits, taxes, inheritances, and so forth. They can eat my shorts!

I don't want anyone trying to legally force on me what they think marriage means. I have a moral definition that neither the Fed, nor any of the liberal left has succeeded at changing!

That marriage is between any two consenting adults of any sexual orientation, is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; evidence that the LGBT community and their supporters have not provided!

I want the Fed out of my bedroom, out of my marriage, out of my bank account and health and life insurance, and out of my inheritance rights.

I want the liberal whiners to learn proper, respectable debate and to start making logical claims as to why marriage laws and definitions must change.

Proselyting a new definition of marriage by legislation and the Supreme Court will not gain my respect, will not change my mind or heart, and may even shorten my tolerance.

As a whole, I don't feel hate in my heart for the LGBTs of this country, but if that's what they are trying to inspire, they are getting close.

There, I've written something angry about the subject. Maybe soon I'll write something more reasoned and gentle.

Homemade Macaroni and Cheese for the NSA

Is it fattening? Yes! Is it loaded with carbs? Absolutely!

Here is my recipe for homemade macaroni and cheese, since obviously the NSA will care so much:

1 lb pasta (we prefer rotini or egg noodles)
1/4 cup butter
1/4 cup all purpose flour
2 cups milk
1/4 tsp ground cumin
1/4 tsp paprika
2 cups shredded cheese (we prefer 1 1/2 cups colby and 1/2 cup romano)

Boil the pasta in a large pot until al-dente, drain and put back in the pot.

In large sauce pot on medium heat, melt butter, whisk in flour until incorporated, whisk in milk and spices. Stir until thickened. Add cheese and stir until melted and well blended. Remove from heat, gently stir into pasta. Serve hot. Makes 6 to 8 servings.

A Change of Policy for the Boy Scouts of America

lifted from Rotary International

Yesterday I found out via The Blaze that the Boy Scouts of America changed it's policy to allow for gay members (but not openly gay leaders).
The Blaze

 I was bothered, alarmed even, for that change. I thought for sure the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would drop the program over this type of change. I consulted the church website to see for sure, but to my surprise the church announced that they will continue with the association with the scouts:
mormonnewsroom.org

I even upon reading other sources found that the church was one of the voices supporting the change:
nbc news
usatoday

I spent several hours last night and this morning soul searching and praying about the matter. To be honest I'm still not 100% percent comfortable with the change; but I had a thought (greatly assited by the church'd official announcement) on the matter that helps me at least consider letting my boys take part in spite of the change:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches the Law of Chastity (no sexual relationships outside of lawful marriage between a husband and wife). That standard is expected of all members no matter the age, marital status, or sexual orientation. The law is taught to the youth and that taking part in church activities (including the scouting program) is conditional upon meeting church standards of conduct.

While the policy change on the national level makes me think twice about letting my boys take part in Boy Scouts, it doesn't seem to change how the Church operates the program.

I'm still worried, however, about whether the door is open to allowing gay scout leadership and the consequences that come with that; or how the boys will relate to each other once one of their members admits to being gay or having same gender attraction. Moral corruption and bullying are both inherent risks, but I guess that's just a bridge I'll have to cross only if and when I get there.


Previous post about the Boy Scout of America: Role Models

What if it were One of Mine?

What if it was my daughter in a homosexual relationship? If she were the minor and I found out she was dating another, older girl, what would I do?

I hope first that I would be big enough to invite the two for a private and polite chat about where our family morals are and what the secular consequences will be if this relationship continues before the age of majority. I would explain that I am morally opposed to all extra marital sex as well as homosexual relationships. I would tell them that their sexual relationship is illegal if they are more than 3 years apart and that if this continues, my daughter will be removed from the school (that is if she is no longer homeschooling) and I will notify the other girl's parents that I oppose the two being together. I would also individually let my daughter know that if she sneaks out or runs away to be with her "girlfriend", I will have to involve the police and file statutory rape charges against the other girl. I would let my daughter know very clearly that as long as she is under age, she puts her "girlfriend" at risk for arrest and a lifetime of problems including reduced chances at college and career. No child of mine plays the "But I love..." card with me.

Now if it was my daughter as the older girl, I wouldn't even bother with meeting the younger girl. I would simply tell my daughter very clearly what the other family can legally do to ruin her life if this relationship goes on. I may even contact the other family and and find out what they know and what action they may take. No matter what the other family does or says, I will tell my daughter to leave the other girl (at least until the younger one has graduated high school and reached eighteen years of age) or I'll not let her drive the family car, not fund college, and if she is especially belligerent, not post bail should the other family press charges.

As a parent, it is my responsibility to teach my children about the law and the consequences of breaking the law.

Tragedy in the Moment, but a Potential Serial Killer Stopped

This story and the comments section has my blood up.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/18/report-hofstra-univ-student-was-shot-killed-by-cop-trying-to-rescue-her/

A quick synopsis of events: Andrea Rebello was with friends in her home when an armed intruder forced his way in and demanded money and valuables. They tried to appease him, but what they had on hand was enough. The intruder allowed one of them to leave to get money from the ATM, but she calls the police instead. When they arrive and the intruder finds out, he gets Andrea in a headlock and attempts to take her hostage to escape. The intruder made a move to fire on the police officer, and the officer fired eight shots, seven of which stuck the intruder, who died of course; and tragically, one struck Andrea in the head, killing her also.

Many comments disparage the police officer, other comments offer condolences to Andrea's family and empathy for the officer.

In my opinion, the police officer made judgement call, one he will have to live with the rest of his life. However, the officer is not the villain in this story, the armed intruder is. A beautiful woman is dead because of the armed crook, not the policeman doing his duty. Even though a young woman is dead, the officer is still the hero. The intruder would likely have killed everyone in the apartment when the money did not come, and the police officer, Andrea, and any number of other people who got in his way while trying to escape or rob again.

On the rare occasions when I have found an police officer or military man in the mood to speak candidly, they have never claimed that being in an armed conflict is good times. In fact one told me these are the moments that nightmares are made of.

Our heros need to make terrible decisions sometimes, but that's what they need to do to make it home to their families.

The survivors were lucky their assailant was stupid and over patient. Home invasions do not usually take long enough for the police to arrive. The police can only be back up or investigators. If even one of these friends had been trained and armed, this story may very well have ended on a better note.