Monday, April 28, 2008

Nitrogen Fixation: little dots in the dirt instruct PhDs in sustainable technology

Greetings all.
Here is a great question for you and your futurist friends:
How do we feed the world's future population,
considering how tough it is today to feed a
mere 6 billion?

Much of the answer may lie in the process of nitrogen fixation. Nitrogen fixation is that process in living things in which abundant but not chemically available atmospheric nitrogen is changed into ammonia, a chemically accessible form of plant nutrition. The April 8, 2008, Science News has a very nice article on process and progress of nitrogen fixation:

In my view, this is a VERY IMPORTANT KEY in the entire issue of sustainability technology. But the reason I blog it today is just to pass on a picture and few nodules of of wisdom from the SN article. First, the picture of nitrogen fixing nodules on plant roots. SN says: ROOTS OF POWER. Plants by themselves can't use the form of nitrogen blowing around in the air, but they can recruit bacteria to set up nitrogen-processing hubs in nodules on roots.W. Eberhart, Getty Images

From the wealth of good info in the article, I just want to pass along four gems followed by related creation-evolution questions, and then leave the rest of the reading to you.
First, how do plants get the nitrogen fixing job done?
By employing favorable BACTERIA to do the the job. SN says:
"Here's where humanity and their kin are routinely humbled by green slime. A roster of "simple" life forms, such as cyanobacteria floating in water or the rhizobia group of bacteria lurking in soil, breaks that bond. This feat, called nitrogen fixation, turns N2 into user-friendly ammonia.
Since 1920, the Haber-Bosch industrial process has let people sunder nitrogen's triple bond as long as there's energy available to raise temperatures to 400° to 500° Celsius and pressures to 200 atmospheres. Your basic pond scum fixes nitrogen at room temperature and everyday atmospheric pressure."
Second, there is an exploratory 'dance' between plant and microbe before the N-fixing partnership is established.
Not every relationship betwen plant and microbe is beneficial. There is an cautious and intimate 'conversation' between plant and microbe before the partnership is established:
"'We have a really eloquent conversation that we can't quite translate,' says Bruce Hungate of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff.
Ann M. Hirsch of the University of California, Los Angeles says, 'I think of it as a dance, but maybe that's because I studied ballet for so long.' She and colleague Angie Lee, now at the University of California, San Diego, described nodulation in terms of ballet in a 2006 paper in Plant Signaling & Behavior. The process begins, they say, with a pas de deux between the legume root hairs, which release flavonoid compounds into the soil, and hang-about bacteria that, in turn, secrete molecules called Nod factors. Even faint traces of these substances prompt dramatic calcium movements within the root hairs."
Third, the dots in the dirt are teaching the doctors of academe:
"Explorations of both plants and their microbes have found new, unsuspected diversity in nitrogen fixing and given scientists more partnerships to study for clues on how to engineer the process. Researchers are also refining their knowledge of how legumes use a chemical 'Craigslist' to find and negotiate with potential microbe workers. Science is apprenticing itself to the masters, crowding in to watch each nuance of the process. Even if the masters are just dots in the dirt." (italics D.U.)
Fourth, it is not just by one simple means that nitrogen fixing is accomplished:
""We were used to boring gray colonies, milky white colonies, and up come these pink things," says Howieson. His collection of new nitrogen-fixing bacteria includes "strange, pink, fast-growing, slimy things" as well as an unpublished prize: "an orange, slimy, yet-to-be-named thing."
Another specialist in nitrogen-fixing nodules, Janet Sprent of the University of Dundee in Scotland, remembers simpler times for systematists. 'From the orderly situation of a century ago,' she says, 'we now have something approaching chaos.'
And, Sprent points out, scientists have barely even begun to survey the many species of tropical plants, especially trees in the legume family, that could easily harbor new species of nitrogen-fixing bacteria."
Actually, origin of life is not the only big question. The sustaining of life, which nitrogen fixing is all about, is equally important to keep in mind while considering the following key points:
(1) SYMBIOSIS in all of its forms are evidence of CREATION, not of gradual evolution, since it requires the simultaneous appearance in time, space, and function of multiple interdependent organisms. For example, the phenomenon of sexual procreation is one oft enjoyed but less oft appreciated as a creation-affirming example of male-female symbiosis. From now on, when you hear "it takes two to tango," just think symbiosis => creation.. The pas de deux (ballet, "step of two") of microbe and plant communication is one more example of such symbiotic relationships.
(2) CONVERGENT EVOLUTION is a term used by evolutionary biologists when organisms not closely related may independently demonstrate (or in doctrinaire evolutionist terminology, "evolve") similar traits. To the unbiased and fair-minded, the multitude of independent yet similar traits in nature shout "common origin from concept", which means "intelligence in design", which means creation! Evolutionists merely created the term "convergent evolution" to bluff and sound scientific while, in reality, saying, "Yeah, they really do look the same or do similar things in very divergent manners or with divergent biochemistry, and it is really cool, wow, yeah, but we don't know how or why."
When Janet Sprent said (above) that we now have a something approaching chaos, she means that there are many many new plant-microbe partnerships being identified. Instead of nearing completion of the N-fixing catalogue, they in fact are seeing that for every volume they complete, another ten volumes are identified which need to be filled. To borrow a doctrinaire evolutionist term, that would be "Convergent Evolution" with a capital "C" and "E."
You must have heard of the "Intelligent Design" controversy by now. If you have not, maybe you are a student in a public school somwhere using textbooks designed to brainwash you and to shield your poor little brain from dangerous (i.e., important) ideas. NASA spends billions of dollars to perhaps maybe somewhere sometime infer intelligent origin from some minimal signals from space. Meanwhile, the reigning tyrannical establishment of "science" denies (and decries discussion of) the notion that a few billion bytes of intricately formed and multiply compacted information in the human genome could come from any form of intelligence. Well, if you are in that crowd, I really can't help you because I only deal with stuff at a rational level. I simply can not take on the role of rescue ranger for the resolutely irrational.
So let the following quote from above speak for itself:
"Science is apprenticing itself to the masters, crowding in to watch each nuance of the process. Even if the masters are just dots in the dirt."
The Holy Bible, Revelation 14:6-7 (NASB), says :
"And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people; and he said with a loud voice, 'Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.'" (bold D.U.)
Respectfully submitted, with shock and awe,

Saturday, April 26, 2008

The Devil is in the Details. Revisiting "The Mormon Dilemma: Roots Come Back to Haunt in Texas."

Just got two responding comments from folks who took exception to the prior post. I have published one of the comments and the other I declined to publish since it contained a link to a website I simply could never in conscience permit to be seen on my blog.

The posted anonymous responder said:

"Your post is VERY ignorant. Sorry you have gotten your facts wrong. From people who are bitter at the LDS church for things THEY have done. You sound very educated, but please don't comment on this religion until you have all the facts."

I'm sorry, anonymous, but my stating facts that you do not like simply does not equate to my being "VERY ignorant." In fact, quite the opposite. Over more than four decades I have had numerous conversations with Mormons and have read a number of very thoroughly documented books on the Mormon church in history and today. As I mentioned in the post, the references section of the book My Kingdom Come could constitute a book in itself. Same with One Nation Under Gods. Same with No Man knows My History. etc., etc., etc.

So, how about a bit of a quiz for Anonymous and friends?

?? True or false: Chapter 132 of the Mormon "scripture" Doctrines and Covenants, written by "prophet" Joseph Smith, contains detailed teaching about the law of polygamy. Verse 132:4 states "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not in that covenant, then ye are damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory...."

?? True or false: The polygamy aspect of Smith's "everlasting covenant" was modified by the "1890 Manifesto" by the Mormon Church in 1890 as a matter of political expediency.

?? True of false: Brigham Young, second "prophet" of the Mormon Church following Joseph Smith, stated in Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 269, "the only men who become gods, even sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy."

?? True or false: There is a university today in Utah bearing the name of the second "prophet."

?? Was Fawn Brodie (at the time of writing still a Mormon) correct or incorrect in her 1945 book No Man Knows My History that Joseph Smith had 49 women (or was it 50 counting first wife Emma)? Was Fawn Brodie correct in stating that at least twelve of those 49 were married women with living husbands? [Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 1945, pp. 335-336]

?? Does the Mormon Church teach that Jesus is a spirit-brother of Lucifer, the "Angel of Light"? (By the way, the answer is yes. By the way also, that is precisely contrary to the Holy Bible).

?? Does the Mormon Church teach the "Law of Eternal Progression" that their "God" is evolving into something greater and that we (Mormons only of course) are evolving into something like God is now? That is the reason Mormonism is not and can never be Christian. See my reference to Isaiah 14:12-15 in

BTW, just to make sure all understand, this is not a blog AGAINST Mormonism. This is a blog FOR truth and facts. Chips fall where they may.

?? Do you wish people around the world to know about the September, 1857, Mountain Meadow Massacre and the role of the Mormon "blood atonement" law in relation to that? Note to the world reading this, just Google "Utah Mountain Meadow Massacre." If you want to really understand it, read One Nation Under Gods, pp. 243-254.

Speaking of "blood atonement", I recall that as the reason the murderer Gary Gilmore, a Mormon, chose his 1977 execution by firing squad instead of by hanging. The Mormon teaching of "blood atonement" (of blood other than that of Jesus) for some sins is absolutely contrary to the Holy Bible. The Bible, speaking of Jesus teaches:
"For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, whch came after the Law, appoints a Son made perfect forever." [The Holy Bible, Hebrews 7:26-28, NASB]. Note that his death was once for all, not once for some.

Speaking of prophets, Jospeph Smith joins a long list of prophets (including Muhammed) who would seek to displace or replace Jesus the only begotten Son of God. In 1844 Joseph Smith proclaimed,
"I have more to boast of than any man ever had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a church together since the days of Adam. ... Neither Paul, John, Peter, or even Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." [Reference: Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409]. But in fact today Jesus is head of a church that numbers over one billion.
Also, according to the Holy Bible, Jesus displaced the prophets. The Bible says:
"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." [The Holy Bible, Hebrews 1:1-3, NASB].

..... Sigh. So much. Just go read it.

Respectfully yet sadly submitted,


Thursday, April 24, 2008

The Mormon Dilemma: The roots come back to haunt in Texas

Greetings all.

This one I hope to be very brief. Just want to clear up a misinformation spinlet that has wormed its way into virtually every news article about the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints following the recent detention of a few hundred members of one sub-branch near San Angelo, Texas.

But first, just to clarify, the name "Jesus Christ" in their name DOES NOT mean this is a Christian organization, just as the SLC Utah organization is NOT Christian. To Mormons, both LDS and FLDS, the "Jesus Christ" they refer to (a created being and brother of Lucifer, the Devil, or Satan) is far different from the Jesus Christ (Creator) of the Bible. And the God of both LDS and FLDS is NOT the God of the Bible.

And there is more, much much more, but not for here and not for today.

Crazy or wacko am I? Just look at the piles of documentation by folks who have escaped the Mormon church. See for example:

But that is not quite the topic today.

What is the question? Who "broke" from whom?

The San Angleo Standard-Times, in one early article on the detentions, said:
"The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a Mormon-based sect that broke away from the mainstream LDS more than 100 years ago and is not affiliated with the Mormon Church."

But the truth is that the modern LDS in fact broke from the original teachings of the first two leaders of Mormons, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

A good read is My Kingdom Come (published in 2007, a year before the San Angelo, TX, mess) by Ed Decker, a former temple Mormon. Chapter 10 of this book is revealing (see p. 227):
"Joseph Smith, the self-proclaimed prophet of God and founder of the Mormon Church, used the doctine of divine revelation to legitimize his polygamous marriages to many wives at the same time. He spiritualized the immorality of his plural marriages, and declared it to be 'a New and everlasting Covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.' " [Doctrines and Covenants, Chapter 135:1-4]

Decker's book also reveals (Chapter 10, p. 228):
"Brigham Young, successor to Joseph Smith, and second prohet of the Mormon Church, vigorously proclaimed that 'the only men who become gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.' [Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 269].

There you have it. The FLDS is in fact following the clear teachings and examples of the first two still-revered leaders of the Mormon Church.

They are in fact following what Joseph Smith called "a new and everlasting covenant."

And if you now scratch your head a bit, you will ask yourself how the "modern" Mormon Church could depart from a "new and everlasting covenant" and still revere Joseph as number one and carry their flagship university named after number two.

That, my friends, is just the teensy tip of the iceberg. In the meantime, be sure to question the potential conflict of allegiance should Mitt Romney ever ascend to national office in the United States. I won't try to give you all the dope here, becasue that work has already been done by numerous authors. You can just do the homework.


Also, another recent and thorough books is:
Abanes, Richard. One Nation Under Gods, Published by FOUR WALLS EIGHT WINDOWS, New York/London, 2002. 651 pp.
Pages 475-651 of this book contains a wealth of notes and references, almost a book unto itself.

Respectfully submitted,


P.S. You may wonder why an evolution despiser like me might take time for a note like this. I write because the Mormon Church (LDS and FLDS) teaches a radical form of evolution, in fact teaching that the one they call God has evolved, and that our own evolution is only a bit behind and following the same course. This is identical to the ultimate sin of Satan, who "desired to be like the Most High." See info on Mormonism's Law of Eternal Progression:

P.P.S. Read "Lillian's Story" in Decker, My Kingdom Come, pp. 234-249. Lillian grew up in a "fundamentalist" colony in northern Mexico, born in 1n 1955 as the fourth daughter of a polygamist named Ervil M. LeBaron. She approached Jeremiah Films in 1988 after her father had (successfully) ordered her husband killed. As Decker relates (p. 236), "She was his (her father's) secretary for ten years and worked closely with him until she realized that, in her own words, he was not only a 'pervert' but also 'demon possessed.' She recollected her earliest chldhood memories 'of secret meetings' and 'a lot of things going on behind closed doors, including wife swapping.' " On January 28, 1989, Lillian was found dead with a gun at her side. The official police report said that it was suicide. Read the book to see what Lillian said people should conclude if anything ever happened to her or to her children. Then think. Then inform.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Ben Stein movie "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed": Is it RADICAL to claim causation between Darwinism and Hitler? How about Dawkins the deluder?

Greetings all.

Yesterday I watched Ben Stein's movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. I was overall very pleased. Stein does a good job to expose the nauseating hypocrisy of evolution's high priests and lackey practitioners as they mouth "academic freedom" while frantically strangling opposing free speech with a desperate crazed white-knuckled on-the-throat grip.

I encourage you to watch the movie. It the meantime, I offer comment on only two aspects of the movie.

(A) Richard Dawkins is still a stinker.

Dr. Richard Dawkins, who got a lot of time in the movie, continues as a pompous pontificating venom-spewing hypocritical illogical crooked-thinking religious zealot in his campaign against God. (Did I leave anything out?) I fear for his eternal soul. And yet more I marvel at the array of shining light minds who line up to kiss his big toe and give him homage, all the while knowing in their carpetbagging fellow-traveler hearts that he uses clearly flawed arguments in his rants against God.

In particular:

(1) Ben Stein brings delight to the discerning persons among the EXPELLED audiences as he coaxes out of Dawkins that Dawkins, the world-famous anti-creationist, finally has to resort to life being created and transported to earth from who-knows-where by who-knows-what (except surely not God with a capital G). "Science" indeed! How that warmed my heart to see the the reigning high priest of CHANCE with egg on his face in front of millions of moviegoers. Slither away into your slimy pit, Richard. Congratulations, Ben Stein!
BTW, have you heard that Dawkins is now livid and threatening a lawsuit because he claims Ben Stein did not fully reveal to him the nature of the movie before the interview(s)? Boooo, hoooo. Hooo, hawww.

(2) If you have not heard it before, Dawkins, in his uncritically acclaimed book The Blind Watchmaker, proposes to show how mutations plus natural selection really could produce some shred of living material in less than the bazillions of gadzillions of milenia which fundamental principles of probability clearly demand. How does he pull off this sleight-of-hand trick? He produces a computer algorithm which simulates mutations in a string of characters attempting to recreate Shakespeare's phrase, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL." But the critical point is that Dawkins, in his shameless sham, uses the phrase as a TARGET which his cute little algorithm will finally arrive at in some reasonable number of mutations, hence implying some reasonable period of time instead of bazillions of gadzillions of years. Well, duhhhh, if you press him or any other ardent evolutionist, they will have to admit (or, perish the thought, defend) that the chance evolution process they worship as their "creator" can not have any foreknowledge. Their mindless god of chance cannot have a target, much less choose toward a target ! ! !

So, you think I am wacky on this? Thanks to Wikipedia we can find Dawkins' own damning words with ease.
Here they are:

"We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL."

So, dear Darwin-is-Dead reader, do you see how this duplicitous deceiver Dawkins desperately deigns to make dupes of the non-discerning? I hope you picked up on it. If you did not find the intelligence-demanding words "chooses" and "target" (which I have conveniently displayed in bold for you) in his explanation, there is no hope for you and you may as well stop reading here.

(B) Is it "radical" to relate Hitler and Darwinism?

One person who attended with us commented that it seemed "radical" to claim a causal relationship between Darwinism and the dreadful carnage wrought by Hitler and Nazi Germany. Let me recommend to you (and to her) a little book called "The Case for Creationism: Fallacies of Evolution", written by Dr. Arlie J. Hoover (Baker Book House, 1977, 85pp). It was my privilege to study world history under Dr. Hoover a few decades ago. The first time I read this book three decades ago, I laughed and cried all the way through, reading cover to cover like a child that won't let go of a cookie. Hoover, a scholar of philosophy and European history, engaged in the origins debate when he found numerous of the "arguments" put forth in support of evolution were egregious violations of simple sophomore-level logic. A "fallacy" is a violation of formal logic, hence the title of the book.
In a chapter entitled "SOCIAL DARWINISM and the GENETIC FALLACY", Hoover describes "THE ANATOMY OF SOCIAL DARWINISM":
"Social Darwinism comes into play when thinkers uncritically apply the principle of natural selection to the problems of human society. Darwinism in sociology leads to a vulgar justification of ruthless competition, struggle, brutality, and violence among men. Let's look at some historical incarnations of Darwinism.
(1) Lassez-faire capitalists used Darwinism to defend their system of unrestrained competition in the business world of the late nineteenth century. In England, disciples of Adam Smith such as Herbert Spencer argued against poor relief and all forms of social welfare by appeal to the doctrine of survival. ... George Nasmyth spoke accurately when he charged that, 'The new Social Darwinism was seized upon with enthusiasm by all men of violence because it permitted them to raise the basest instincts of greed and vandalism to the height of a universal law of nature.' [ Reference: George Nasmyth, Social Progress and the Darwinism Theory: A Study of Force as a Factor in Human Relations (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1916), Chapter 2]."
(2) Imperialists used Darwinism to justify the conquest and exploitation of non-western peoples in the last century. They exhorted their compatriots to 'take up the white man's burden' and carry the blessings of western civilization to the 'inferior' dark-skinned peoples of the globe. Many ruling classess of the western countries denied rights to their less-educated subjects simply on the grounds that they weren't sufficiently evolved. ... All of this imperialism, justified by Darwinian evolution, was a potent factor in bringing on the Great War of 1914. [Reference: cited in B. Farrington, What Darwin Really Said (New York: Schocken Books, 1966), p. 104].
(3) Exponents of war used Darwinism to justify military struggle among nations. Only the stern test of combat, militarists insisted, could reveal which nation was stronger than another. Nature shows us, they said, that war is the great winnowing process, the terrible final examination between nations. ...
(4) Champions of eugenics used Darwinism to push for eugenics legislation. ... Eugenics champions tended to be very critical of all forms of altruistic morality, toleration, humanitarianism, liberalism, democracy, or internationalism, because these sentiments, with their concerns for the unfit, were 'counterselective.' Nature wipes out the weak specimen; shouldn't sound legislation do the same? [ Reference: for a look at this strain in Hitler's background, see Joachim C. Fest, Hitler, trans. Richard and Clara Winston (New York: Random House, 1975), p. 54.]
(5) Racists found Darwinism especially useful in preaching their gospel of ethnic superiority. Racism asserts that the human family is hopelessly fractionalized and that the 'fractions' - the distinct races - have varying values. Racism asserts that struggle, not cooperation, is the normal, yea even the desirable, state of race relations and the competition proves some races superior to others in intelligence, creativity, and cultural capacity. ...

The ideology of Nazi Germany combined many of these Social Darwinian features just discussed- notably racism, imperialism, militarism, and eugenics. As Hitler's biographer, Alan Bullock, said, the core of Nazi ideology was 'a crude Social Darwinism.' Hitler stated,
'Man has become great through struggle.... Whatever goal man has reached is due to his originality plus his brutality... All life is bound up in these three theses: Struggle is the father of all things, virtue lies in blood, leadership is primary and decisive.'
Hitler took his cue from Nietzsche, who had insisted that since God is dead altruism is also dead, because altruism is based on theism. Hitler agreed that altruism or love is 'counterselective.' 'The whole work of nature,' he insisted, 'is a mighty struggle between strength and weakness - and eternal victory of the strong over the weak.' Any person or state that offends this elementary law will fail. 'Only force rules. Force is the first law.' But what about morality? 'History proves,' concluded Hitler, 'he who has not the strength - him the right in itself profits not a whit.' [Reference: Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (New York: Bantam Books, 1964), pp. 345-46.]
When the Nazis finally got down to putting this racism into actual legislation, they spelled out what they considered the logical implications of evolution. In the infamous Nuremburg Laws (1935), directed principally against the Jews, they asserted that 'there is a greater difference between the lowest forms still called human and our superior races (Aryan) than between the lowest man and monkeys of the highest order.' In other words, the Jews and Slavs, because they were vastly inferior to Aryans, were closer to apes than to their fellow humans!"

I hope this will help you understand better the clear causation link between Darwinism and some of the greatest social evils that have arisen (or have been encouraged) since his writing, and in particular those fomented by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party.

Is this a "radical" idea? Perhaps radical, but undoubtedly factual and historical.

Enough for now. Go see the movie.

Respectfully submitted,


Friday, April 04, 2008

“Being an atheist is really scary. ... It was hard to sleep at night." Remembering Dr. Richard Lumsden

“Being an atheist is really scary”

I mentioned in a recent post a comment from Dr. Richard Lumsden that there were no truly "vestigial" organs. It reminded me to share with you more about Dr. Lumsden.

I read in 1997 of the death of Dr. Richard Lumsden, a man I barely knew. In July, 1994, I attended the Third International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. At that time Dr. Lumsden was Chairman of the Biology Department at the Institute for Creation Research, where he served from 1991 to 1996. I had heard Dr. Lumsden give a paper on the "paradox" of the cell surface membrane, in which he concluded that "the integrated structural and functional complexity of extant plasma membranes provides yet further evidence of purposeful design."

Dr. Lumsden obtained his post-secondary and graduate education at Tulane, Harvard, and Rice Universities, where he received his doctorate in cell biology with postdoctoral training in medical pathology at the Tulane Medical School. He served more than twenty years on the faculty of Tulane University as a professor and research scientist. He had authored over 100 peer-reviewed research articles, a number of reviews, texts, and technical monographs. He had served on the editorial boards of several international journals and had received numerous professional awards, scholarships, fellowships, and research grants. His appointments had included those of panelist and/or reviewer of research grants and programs to the National Institutes of Health and other agencies.

After I attended Dr. Lumsden's paper presentation, I was hoping for a chance to meet and talk with him. A couple of days later, on July 21, 1994, I found Dr. Lumsden and myself in the conference cafeteria eating at the same table. I was curious about his life and how he wound up at ICR, so I started asking him questions. As he responded, I scribbled notes on napkins (three brown ones and one white one) pulled from the dispenser on the cafeteria table. It got more interesting as we went along.

DU: Dr. Lumsden, have you been a creationist very long?

RL: Oh, no. I was an atheist and evolutionist most of my life. I didn't view creationists very well, and gradualists were anathema to me. I was a professor at Tulane University. But I didn't treat creationists too rudely because, after all, I was raised a southern gentleman and southern gentlemen just don't do that.

DU: So, how did you become a Christian?

RL: One day around 1986 I gave a vainglorious lecture on the origin of life, all about evolution. It was kind of a thing of the times. It was during the Louisiana law business, so it was a topic of interest. I quoted Oparin and Huxley -- you know. The students ate it up. Students like blasphemy. After class, a girl came up to me and said she had some questions. She said she didn't want to argue with me. She just wanted to "get her science straight." After about three hours I had talked myself out of evolution - so I just put it out of my mind. But, you know, the more you try to put something out of your mind, the harder it is. It just keeps coming back - like a bad penny. In one year I found myself on my knees before a saving altar (accepting the Lord Jesus).

DU: What about the student who had spoken to you a year earlier?

RL: I knew she had taken a class in Evolutionary Biology, so I asked the professor in that class about her. He told me she had gotten an "A" in the class, but she had just driven him nuts. She graduated and then went on to complete medical school. I met her again one time. She had heard by the grapevine that I had become a Christian and, after our hugs and hallelujahs, she said, "You know, Dr. Lumsden, I prayed for all my professors, but you got extra time." Last I heard, she was a medical missionary in a jungle somewhere.

DU: What do you see as the key scientific evidence in support of creation?

RL: I think the key point is complexity of design. You know, Darwinism is not intuitively obvious. You have to be taught it. You have to be educated into believing stuff that only a PhD would believe.

DU: Since that time, how has your life changed?

RL: For the better.

DU: How has your science changed?

RL: It makes more sense now. Those (cell wall) membranes make more sense now, I'll tell you that.

DU: And your personal life?

RL: When you know where you are from, you know who you are, you know where you are going, and you know with Whom you are going, it changes life a lot. Being an atheist is really scary. There was a lot of tension that wouldn't go away. It was hard to sleep at night.

Submitted with great respect in memory of Dr. Richard Lumsden, scientist, Christian, and southern gentleman.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

I'm a Lenin believer - so keep DEMANDING the evidence !

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

Greetings Truthseekers Out There:

I suppose you have heard of Lenin. No, not the Beatle. I mean Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Russian Communist politician and revolutionary, Father and first premier of the Soviet Union 1917-1924, head of Soviet Communist Party 1923-1924. See:

For my usual daily delight (following the sports page), I read the comics in our local newspaper. I hope you, too, are culturally enlightened in this way.

Here is Mother Goose and Grimm today.

Now doesn't that precisely explain why a fact-defying religion like Darwin's evolution could ever be propagated to the point that it holds sway over the minds and destinies of millions (maybe Billions)?

The lie of evolution - that blind dumb purposeless CHANCE is the author of seeing reasoning purposeful life from fish to philosophers - is a fairy-tale for grownups.

Note: As accused by Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, who said, "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups."

This fairy tale was spun by Darwin and is continually reinvented, repackaged, and respun by depraved deceivers. Sadly, to the earthly and eternal detriment of deluded dupes. And, sadly, they are legion.

How can this be? According to Lenin, all it takes is persistence and willingness to repeat the lie often enough (perhaps sprinked with necessary and ancillary fibs along the way). And a few hearts willing to raise a fist against the Almighty God of Heaven and Earth catalyze and stir the poisonous brew. Their fate is fearful.

And so it has been. And so what to do?

Just keep asking - no, DEMANDING - evidence for "the fact of evolution." You will be stonewalled by people who oppose the introduction of facts and logic which discomfit the flim-flammy DarwinDogma endemic in our public school texts. See my prior post:

and follow the link to find comments posted about the Tampa news article. You will see how deep the deception is.

Hey folks - just keep on asking. Just keep on DEMANDING. Just keep on keepin' on. No head hanging and no mumbled murmured apologetic apologetics.

Darwin is DEAD. Let's keep on tilting the old boy until he topples.

Respectfully submitted,