eNews

"Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky—try to take over the world!"

The majority of people on the earth want peace and well being for the entirety of mankind. There seems to be a constant problem though; human beings. Yet, despite past dismal results, world nations continue to make efforts to unite on major issues in order to find common ground and make binding international treaties. The leaders of Iran and Brazil met this week with visions of working-over the international order, and the upcoming meeting at Copenhagen will be another attempt at seeing eye-to-eye on reducing greenhouse emissions. Yet, while recent efforts at global governance have proved weak and unproductive, their very failures may one day turn out to be the impetus for an all-out push for true global "unity".

The representatives of 192 nations will meet in Copenhagen December 7-18 for the United Nations Climate Change Conference. This is the follow-up to the 1997 meeting in Kyoto, Japan that attempted to deal with global climate change. The US Senate never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire in 2012.

Things do not look so good for the globalists and environmentalists' cause. While the nations of the world may give lip service to lowering carbon dioxide emissions, environmentally friendly technologies are expensive to implement. Getting industrial nations to agree to lower their emissions by 25-40 percent by 2020 (as UN scientists have recommended) during a robust economy would be hard enough, let alone during the current time of belt-tightening. When "green" technologies raise the costs of food and fuel, many countries are going to be hesitant to sign on. Both US President Obama and China's President Hu have pushed for a two-step plan, which means agreeing to emissions reductions this December, but not actually signing anything legal until next year.

Copenhagen also promises to instigate a significant bit of wealth redistribution; sending billions of dollars and machinery from the "have" countries to the "have not" countries in order to help them reach goals of reducing greenhouse emissions. 

The US Senate is considering passing a bill to drop emissions 17 percent by 2020. The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that the Earth had warmed 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit since 1906, and environmental groups argue that the globe will continue to warm 7.2 degrees more by 2100 with catastrophic results.

These predictions would be more frightening if there was a consensus about global climate change and if there had actually been any additional global warming the past few years.  But.... temperatures appear to be "hanging," and are not as high as in 2005, in fact.   Aside from that, a hacker apparently got into emails from scientists at the Climatic Research Unit which, according to The Times, indicate the following: 

"(a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend;
(b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data;
(c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and
(d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals."

British PM Gordon Brown declared last week that Copenhagen must "forge a new international agreement ... which must contain the full range of commitments required: on emissions reductions by both developed and developing countries, on finance and on verification."

Despite Gordon Brown, this next step toward global governance will likely end in failure enveloped in flowery sounding words.

Iran and Brazil
Globalists will not give up, though, and certain world governments don't want them to.  Some, like Brazil and Iran, just want to have a significantly bigger cut of the power pie. 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Monday, the first visit to Brazil by an Iranian president. Lula welcomed Ahmadinejad with open arms, and Ahmadinejad returned the sentiment by saying the two countries enjoyed "brotherly relations." Brazil has irked many in the West by giving vocal support to Iran's nuclear program.

During the visit, the two leaders discussed international relations and agreed that the world's order of leadership needed revising. They said the UN was doing a poor job of fixing both political and economic world problems [we don't disagree] and expressed their desire for a new order of things, an order in which all the countries of the world worked together toward eliminating problems.

In other words, they wanted countries like Brazil and Iran to have a greater say in things. In their version of the new world order, the structure of the UN Security Council would look a bit different. Brazil would have a permanent seat, for instance. With veto power.

Ahmadinejad said:

"Iran and Brazil, due to their rich cultural and humane backgrounds, and their share viewpoints on international relations, can play active roles in both designing and implementing a justice seeking world order. The current world order is incapable of solving the global crises and the governments should cooperate in order to eliminate the major problems existing in it."

Despite their inefficiency of working together, the governments of the world will come together one day.  According to 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, a world leader will arise who will come across as the greatest thing since apple butter.  He will exalt himself above all gods and will call himself God. What's more, everybody on earth will worship him (Rev 13:8), everybody not written in the Book of Life.   He won't look evil to the common eye; he won't wear red tights and carry a pitchfork.  He'll appear as a great and powerful leader and orator (Rev 13:4,5).

In the meanwhile, we're not to live in fear.  We are to trust God, keep working, and keep seeking the Kingdom of God and His righteousness (Matt 6:33, Luke 12:31, 32).  The true King of the Universe wins in the end, and under Him we'll truly find peace.

"In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you."  -1Thess 5:18

It's simple to thank God when He does miracles and answers prayers just the way we want them answered. It's also pretty easy to thank Him when we can look around and see many blessings in our lives. When our situation seems awful, though, and we're struggling through tragedy or just plain hard times, it can seem hard to believe that God is really there taking care of things; it can be hard to say, "I know You love me. Thank you for what You are doing even now."

Jobless rates in 29 US states rose last month, with Michigan suffering the worst rate at 15.1 percent and Nevada and Rhode Island close behind at 13 and 12.9 percent respectively. In California alone, payrolls have dropped by 687,700 workers in just the past year. It's a very difficult time for a lot of people across America and around the world, and giving thanks to God may be the last thing in the minds of those who don't know how they're going to pay their electric bill or put gas in the car.

Yet, it's good to know that the economy does not have God worried. His arms are not tied. The One who looks after the sparrows is fully capable of looking after each one of us as well, and even the rotten things that happen in our lives are in His hands. Jesus says, in Luke 12:7, "But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows."

Jesus never promised us gardens of roses or even daisies in this life. He did promise he would never leave or forsake us (Heb 13:5).

Thank You For The Fleas:
In her book The Hiding Place, Corrie Ten Boom tells of a time she discovered that God was working even in the most horrific circumstances.

Corrie and her sister Betsie had been imprisoned by the Nazis for hiding Jews behind the wall of their Holland home, and Nazi prison conditions pretty well unbearable.

Corrie writes:

"Barracks 8 was in the quarantine compound. Next to us--perhaps as a deliberate warning to newcomers--were located the punishment barracks. From there, all day long and often into the night, came the sounds of hell itself. They were not the sounds of anger, or of any human emotion, but of a cruelty altogether detached: blows landing in regular rhythm, screams keeping pace. We would stand in our ten-deep ranks with our hands trembling at our sides, longing to jam them against our ears, to make the sounds stop.

"It grew harder and harder. Even within these four walls there was too much misery, too much seemingly pointless suffering. Every day something else failed to make sense, something else grew too heavy."

Yet, in the midst of the suffering, the women prisoners around Corrie and Betsie found comfort in the little Bible studies they held in the barracks. Corrie writes they gathered around the Bible "like waifs clustered around a blazing fire…The blacker the night around us grew, the brighter and truer and more beautiful burned the Word of God."

When they were moved to Barracks 28, Corrie was horrified by the fact that their reeking, straw-bed platforms swarmed with fleas. How could they live in such a place?

It was Betsie who discovered God's answer:

"'"Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus." That's it, Corrie! That's His answer. "Give thanks in all circumstances!" That's what we can do. We can start right now to thank God for every single thing about this new barracks!'

"I stared at her; then around me at the dark, foul-aired room…"

They thanked God for the fact they were together. They thanked God they had a Bible. They even thanked God for the horrible crowds of prisoners, that more people would be able to hear God's Word. And then, Betsie thanked God for the fleas.

"The fleas! This was too much. 'Betsie, there's no way even God can make me grateful for a flea.'

"'"Give thanks in all circumstances,"' she quoted. 'It doesn't say, "in pleasant circumstances."  Fleas are part of this place where God has put us.'

"And so we stood between tiers of bunks and gave thanks for fleas. But this time I was sure Betsie was wrong."

It turned out that Betsie was not wrong; the fleas were a nuisance, but a blessing after all. The women were able to have Bible studies in the barracks with a great deal of freedom, never bothered by supervisors coming in and harassing them. They finally discovered that it was the fleas that kept those supervisors out.

Through those fleas, God protected the women from abuse and harassment.  Dozens of desperate women were free to hear the comforting, hope-giving Word of God.  Through those fleas, God protected the women from much worse things and made sure they had their deepest, truest needs met. 

We all have "fleas" in our lives. We all have those things that we can see no use for, things that are obviously horrible, unpleasant, painful things that we want gone. No life is free of "fleas", but if Corrie and Betsie can be our examples, God can use even these nasty insects for our protection and blessing. As we celebrate Thanksgiving Day, lets thank God for His constant care and provision, and for His hidden blessings that come in ways we can easily overlook.

Darwin's Origin of Species celebrates its 150th birthday on Tuesday, November 24, 2009, and during those 150 years Darwin's ideas have come to dominate scientific disciplines from biology to archeology to sociology and everything in between. Biologists like to claim that evolution has been proven absolutely, with no question about it among reputable scientists. Scientists may quibble about the specifics of evolution, they say, but not about the fact of it.

There are indeed a growing number of professional scientists who disagree that the evidence points to molecules-to-man evolution. Whether those scientists are "reputable" is not at issue; in today's scientific community, having the audacity to question Darwin can in itself quickly tarnish the reputation of a formerly respected scientist. The fact is, men and women who know their stuff can disagree about the ability of existing evidence, paired with Darwinian ideas, to sufficiently explain the formation of life as we know it. These scientists come from all manner of religious backgrounds, including agnostics who claim no religion at all.

During the next several weeks, we are going to diligently and carefully address some major issues in the evolution debate, things like transitional forms and the reliability of cladistic analysis, radiometric dating, the fossil record, bacteria, and potentially more. To begin our series on evolution, though, we need to start with a return to the definition of "evolution."  We've run this article in the past, but a review is necessary before we take this further, especially for new readers.  In the following weeks, God willing, we can go on to fascinating topics that are of interest to science lovers everywhere.

There are a number of different concepts that can be used when talking about evolution.  Unfortunately, many people do not stop to define the terms they are using when getting into discussions on evolution.  Because of this, students of science can easily misunderstand one another.  Below are some general terms often involved in discussions about evolutionary theory, and sorting these out can help one keep definitions straight when discussing origins.

Change over time:  The most basic definition of evolution is simply "the process of change or development over a period of time."  Hence, music, cultures, sports teams all "evolve."   In biology, classes of animals and plants have experienced marked change over dozens or hundreds or thousands of years.  At one time, beavers were as big as today's bears, and ancient ground sloths once grew to be the size of oxen.   Little three-toed horses and small camels roamed what is now Texas.  Over time, groups of animals diversify, as shown by the fossil record and common observation.  This definition is extremely broad, and says nothing about what caused the change or where the beavers or sloths came from in the first place.

Descent with Modification: This term that Darwin used basically means that living creatures have the ability to create offspring like themselves, but with the potential for variation.  Today, descent with modification is explained through the field of genetics and studies involving DNA.  Through the building-plan code of DNA, creatures can produce offspring like themselves, yet with room for variation.   Brown-eyed parents who have recessive gene coding for blue eyes can produce blue-eyed children.  Cats can give birth to kittens with a range of characteristics, all in one litter, depending on the specific DNA coding passed on to each kitten by its mother and its father.

Adaptation:  Sometimes an offspring receives certain traits or characteristics from its parents that allow it to survive in certain situations better than in others.  Large-beaked finches adapt better to eating hard, large seeds, because their beaks are strong enough to crush them.  Finches with long, thin beaks adapt better to getting food out of hard-to-reach places.   Finches with large beaks will do better in one environment and will flourish there, while others with long beaks will flourish in other environments.

Survival of the Fittest:  This basic concept promoted by Darwin argues that those organisms that are best able to adapt to a particular environment will live to produce more offspring. For instance, when there is plenty of food, all the finches on an island can do well.  However, during times of drought, only the finches with the strongest beaks will be able to eat the hardest seeds, enabling them to survive and reproduce.  If other finches with longer, thinner beaks can get seeds from places the rest of the finches can't, these will survive and reproduce.  The other finches that can't compete for the food supply will die out.  Soon, the "specialized" finches are reproducing more "specialized" offspring like themselves, so that obvious variations start showing up between the different groups of finches.

Natural Selection:  Adaptation and Survival of the Fittest work together to create success among certain groups of creatures with certain genetic variations.  "Nature" selects which ones survive based on which ones are best adapted to their environment and best able to overcome the competition.  Natural Selection includes both ecological selection (overcoming competition for food, safety, shelter) and sexual selection (which guy gets the girl).

Genetic Drift:  This refers to the way small populations of creatures end up reproducing and passing on their genetic information and becoming specialized even if they are not the best adapted to an environment.  If all the competition got killed by a lightening storm or flood or avalanche, those left behind would continue to reproduce and survive, whether or not they were the best suited to survive otherwise.

Most of the above concepts can be seen regularly in nature and are largely beyond dispute.  However, the following ideas start creating heavy debate:

Speciation:  This term refers to the formation of new "species" over time, generally through the mechanisms of natural selection and survival of the fittest.  When many people talk about "evolution" they often mean "speciation," arguing that through natural selection, entirely new species have been formed.

Whether this can be proven actually depends on the definition of the term "species" (and there is still a great deal of arguing among scientists over that one).  Usually, a species is considered to be a group whose members only reproduce with each other.  Finches may become so specialized that they no longer mate with other kinds of finches.  These can be considered a new "species" of finch. 

Yet, evolutionists often extrapolate to argue that through these processes thousands or millions of years ago, finches evolved from some more generic form of bird, which evolved from some more generic form of vertebrate.  The line should be drawn at the DNA evidence.  What does the DNA allow for?  How much genetic variation was originally available in the DNA of the earliest finches, and how can we determine it?  Natural Selection can only work with the DNA code already present, and cannot create new DNA coding that did not previously exist.  The specialized finches are still finches and are not turning into some other kind of bird.

Mutation:  To deal with this obvious problem of DNA coding, some evolutionary scientists have argued that through small mutations, new information can be added to the genetic code. 

However, there is much debate over this issue.  Mutations are naturally destructive and cause damage, and evolutionary scientists have been hard pressed to find beneficial mutations. On rare occasion, a mutation can help a creature survive when it would otherwise not be able to, but only because the mutation has caused a malfunction.  For instance, children with sickle-cell anemia are more resistant to malaria, but this is because their red blood cells are not functioning properly, (and large numbers still die from the sickle-cell anemia).  Many "super bugs" in hospitals are immune to antibiotics because they are actually mutated, sickly bacteria and can't function properly to take in the antibiotics.  When put in competition with normal bacteria outside of a hospital setting, these "super bugs" can die off quickly.

The General Theory of Evolution:  This is the popular but controversial idea that all life on earth started in a primordial soup, and that all the variation of life on earth arose through gradual evolution by way of mutation, adaptation, and survival of the fittest.

This is where the heavy argumentation over "evolution" is often focused.  The general theory that all life on earth evolved from primordial microbes is based on philosophical beliefs about the nature of nature, on models, on extrapolations, and on guesswork – because it deals with theories about things that cannot be directly observed or reproduced.  The best scientists can do is create models and work to fit the observable evidence to their models. In this sense, evolutionary theory is absolutely a work in progress.

While many concepts in "evolutionary" science are useful in understanding genetics and the variations between species, it is important to recognize where observation ends, and where extrapolation and theorizing begin.  Those in the information sciences recognize the vital importance of focusing on information and the genetic code and of determining where the DNA code originated in the first place.   Without a mechanism for adding information to the genetic code, natural selection and adaptation can only produce more specialized finches or dogs or horses, but they cannot tell us how finch or dog or horse DNA was programmed in the first place.

To be continued...