Dinesh D'Souza Prevails: Richard Dawkins is Delusional

Dinesh D'Souza recently presented the philosophical case for God on the Riz Khan show. Richard Dawkin's appeared on the show as well, but told producers that he would not debate D'Souza face to face.

It appears as though the world's so-called "leading athiest" is afraid to spar in public. Of course, if it looks like a chicken and acts like a chicken...chances are...Dawkin's is a chicken. Balk, balk, balk. The clip was broadcast to more than 20 million viewers worldwide. You can watch the clips or read more about the situation on Townhall.com:

http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera

The Future of Human Nature

Bodies stuffed with prosthesis to boost performance, the intelligence of angels available on hard drives, these are fantastical images. There is a fusion, between the organically grown and technologically made on the one hand, and the separation of the human mind from live subjectivity on the other.

Whether these speculations are the product of a feverish imagination or serious predictions, I refer to them only as examples of an instrumentalization of human nature initiating a change in our self-understanding as a species.

The manipulation of the human genome, which is being aggressively decoded, and the hope entertained by certain scientists of soon being able to take evolution into their own hands, after all, uproot the distinction between the subjective and the objective, the naturally grown and technologically made, man and machine. What is at stake is the future of the human species as we know it, and our ability to conceive of ourselves as the authors of our own life stories.

The ruthless intrusion into the makeup of the human genome of the embryo will blur the intuitive distinction between the grown and the made, ones “self” and the engineers “program”—with repercussions reaching as far as the self-reference of the person to his or her own bodily existence. The vanishing point of self-hood lies somewhere in the extent to which an adolescent’s body, for example, is revealed to him as eugenically manipulated, as something which is also “made.” Here the first-person perspective of “being-oneself” collides with the third-person external perspective of “being-an-observer-to-one’s-own-life.”

“Did I do that?” the adolescent asks himself, “or was that the hand of my genetic engineer, reaching through my genome, who really chose to do that for me?”

Genetically fixed demands are irreversible and cannot be responded to. Will the adolescent ever feel like the undivided author of his own life story again, or but a co-author, or worse, less? And who will be held responsible for his actions? The programming intentions of parents or of the state might have existential consequences for the pre-programmed adolescent. The change would take place in the mind.

This does not seem like an enhancement to me, but rather the exercise of power of those living today over those coming after. The other side of genetic power today, is the future bondage of the living dead. How might this new and a-symmetrical power of the past over the future be shattered?

Intelligent Design: Dembski > Darwin

With all our technology, our understanding, our progress, our super-computers and lifetimes of work, we cannot even come close to creating anything anywhere near as complex as an earthworm.
Yet these super complex organisms, with more complex parts than any super-computer, supposedly came together by chance, without anything intelligent guiding their way.
When that giant, Charles Darwin roamed the earth so long ago, most “scientists” held the view that the universe was infinite and eternal. However, in the middle of the twentieth century, the universe, according to science, got much cozier.
As evidence mounted for the Big Bang hypothesis, the specter of a beginning of the universe, and thus, a finite universe, the limits of time and space ruled out the possibility for infinite chance events.
Without infinite chance events, the highly improbable events associated with the theory of evolution stretch the boundaries of probability, and the imagination, past the breaking point. In light of a finite universe, in light of the impending collapse of naturalism, how should science come to view life?
Enter, Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the philosophical, theological, scientific, and mathematical theory that all biological organisms are far too well ordered, or, too complex to have been created by any simple unintelligent chance event or series of chance events.
The Intelligent Design hypothesis is premised on what is called specified complexity. Specified complexity uses reason, science and math to detect design in highly improbable, complex, independent patterns.
For example, we detect design at the cellular basis for life because cells are so complex and molecules are so independent. “Cells are machines of stunning complexity. A single cell is like an entire assembly line of molecules, operating in perfect harmony.”
Another indicator that the “universe might have some sort of design was the gradual discovery, starting in the 1950’s of dozens of ‘fine-tuned’ parameters in physics and cosmology, that were seemingly arbitrary values; yet, if those values were varied by even the tiniest amount, the universe simply wouldn’t ‘work’ in anything like the way it actually does.
The Big Bang would have been immediately followed by a big crunch or atoms and molecules could not have formed, or galaxies, stars, planets could not have formed; or carbon and other heavier atoms -all necessary for life- could not have formed. There is a long list of such parameters that have been identified, and the probability of getting the “right” values for all these by blind chance so as to enable life on our planet is so astronomically high that is raises some obvious and weighty questions about whether the cosmos bears the mark of design.
Interestingly, in response to this scientific case for cosmic design most working cosmologists have accepted an ad hoc escape valve called the ‘multi-verse.’ The idea is that there must be an infinite number of universes, each with a random set of physical laws, constants, constraints, etc. Supposedly, we just happen to have “won the universe lottery!” We’re sitting in a single one of these infinite universes that just happens to have all the right conditions that makes life possible. Now, doesn’t it take a lot of “faith” to believe in this multi-verse hypothesis?”
Even is trillions of years went by, I don’t believe that any super-computer, or a pencil for that matter, could come into existence without an intelligent designer. Do you?
Intelligent Design is a far more plausible explanation for the universe and life, if one observes nature, if one practices the scientific method.

Ryan Sorba

-All text in quotes was taken from either page 396 or 397, of Senator Rick Santorum’s book “It Takes a Family.”

Cicero's Podium

On June 12th 2006, I gave a one hour talk, exposing the dark secrets of the homosexual political movement. The speech is entitled The Born "Gay" Hoax.

Just click on the link below if you have windows media player to watch! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4207851797866730699

Radio Appearance

(Listen)

Read This to Find Out the Secret Way to Overturn Roe v. Wade!!!

Because of Roe v. Wade more than 45 million unborn children have died through abortion.In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court declared it could not resolve ''the dificult question of when life begins''-and on the basis of this unresolved question, declared a new ''right to abortion'' based on a ''right to privacy''.

The 14th ammendment to the constitution states: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its juristiction the equal protection of the law''.

In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court admitted: if...personhood (for the unborn) is established, the apellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then gauranteed specifically by the 14th Ammendment.........

Science is clear that human life begins at conception when a new human being is formed. Post- conception, the zygote is a distinct, unified, self-integrating human organism. All genetic material needed to drive the unborn’s development is there! That means that from this point on there is an individual human, and she or he will remain so! It is an immature human, as is an infant, but a human being nonetheless!

A Life at Conception Act, by declaring that unborn children are persons legally entitled to constitutional protection, would overturn Roe v. Wade.We urge you to contact your Senators and/or Congressman to make sure that the Senate and/or House of Representative schedules hearings and a vote on a Life at Conception Act and to do everything possible to bring it to a full vote in the U.S. Senate and House in this session of Congress.-Ryan Sorba (paraphrased and really altered quote by The National Right to Life Alliance)