From today’s local paper, a lawyer weighs in on evolution and antibiotics:
Evolution has nothing to do with antibiotics
Mark Farmer, a cellular biology professor at the University of Georgia, asserts (Forum, Jan. 23), “The reason for taking every last pill in an antibiotic treatment is based on Darwinian theory, and one literally risks one’s life if one fails to understand this.”
I ask that Farmer explain how Darwinian theory has anything to do with proper antibiotic therapy. I do not believe Darwinian evolution reasonably explains the origins of biological organisms, but I do recognize the importance of completing a proper regimen of antibiotic therapy.
Presumably, Farmer has in mind the apparent development or acquisition of antibiotic resistance by certain microorganisms when exposed to antibiotics. If antibiotic-resistant organisms in a population survive when exposed to the antibiotic, and non-resistant organisms die, then the remaining population of the organisms is antibiotic-resistant.
Darwinian theory addresses the origin of the population’s characteristics in the first place (i.e. antibiotic resistance or non-resistance), not the manner of survival of certain organisms in a population exposed to certain environments. The resistant organisms already existed before exposure to the antibiotic, even if they were created instantaneously by a creator and not by a process of Darwinian evolution.
Ronald E. Houser
A perusal of past letters in the ABH written by Houser reveals that he is a total loon.
If a creator can’t be taught, neither should evolution
Your Jan. 5 editorial regarding the “creator” trait in Georgia’s character education curriculum raised some questions.
First, how does teaching “respect for the creator” push religion any more than does the teaching of a theory of origins (molecules to man evolution) that contradicts scriptural accounts (accepted by many thousands of theists); well accepted laws of science, e.g. the Law of Biogenesis and the Second Law of Thermodynamics; and observed facts, e.g., genetic stability and fossil stasis?
If teaching an atheistic or agnostic student respect for the creator violates the separation of church and state, why does not the teaching of materialistic evolution whether of the Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, or punctuated equilibria type to a Christian, Moslem, Jew or other theist violate the separation of church and state? After all, the U. S. Supreme Court has referred to secular humanism as a religion along with Buddhism, Taoism and other religions that do not teach a belief in the existence of a creator god. Secular humanists themselves have declared it to be a religion based on a belief in evolution (Humanist Manifesto I & II).
Secondly, how can anyone say that “honesty and kindness” are positive traits to be included in character education unless there is a creator that serves as a standard? If we came into existence through a process of killing off less fit competitors, then perhaps dishonesty and cruelty are the positive traits that give one a survival advantage. At the least, one cannot be criticized for following a cruel and dishonest path in a quest for survival.
Before anyone raises the issue of separation of church and state regarding government-operated schools, one must first determine what is and what is not “religion.”
Ronald E. Houser
There really is only one plausible explanation for the origins of life
Amherst microbiologist Lynn Margulis champions the Gaia theory because her “research” fits right in. However, symbiogenesis as a mechanism for evolution is no more scientific than conventional evolutionary theory. Her reported statement that “It’s not easy to test the Gaia hypothesis” is not entirely accurate. (Read the Nov. 20 article about Margulis’ lecture.)
It is not possible to test the Gaia hypothesis, nor for that matter, symbiogenesis or conventional evolutionary theory as explanations for the origin of Earth, or life on Earth. The disappearance of oxygen and nitrogen from Earth’s atmosphere after the obliteration of life on Earth (assuming an observer to monitor the results) would do nothing to reveal the origin of that life or those gases. The presence of “genes that were once viruses” in human DNA or “mitochondria which were once independent bacteria” now in human cells, does nothing to reveal the origin of viruses, DNA, mitochondria, or cells.
Which came first, DNA or the proteins essential for the production of DNA? Nearly 20 different proteins are required to duplicate DNA, but the instructions for the production of those proteins are in DNA. The only plausible explanation for this chicken-or-egg riddle is that they were designed simultaneously by an Intelligent Designer, which also explains why Earth’s atmosphere is so different from that of its near neighbors, Mars and Venus, and supports life.
Ronald E. Houser
Speedy lizard disputes survival of the fittest theory
I found the Nov. 3 article regarding the newly found “speedy lizard” fossil interesting, particularly the comments of David S. Berman and Robert R. Reisz, two of the scientists studying the fossil.
The bipedal Eudibamus cursoris (the scientific name for the new fossil) was “built for speed” and “very, very fast.” This bipedalism and speed supposedly gave Eudibamus an evolutionary advantage and was “essential to its survival.” But, despite this supposed advantage, Eudibamus “made only a brief appearance in the fossil record,” presumably implying that it did not survive.
As the article pointed out, “modern lizards move awkwardly, holding their entire weight off the ground by muscle power.” Walking upright on two feet placed part of the weight on the skeleton itself which is “much more efficient.” Despite this more efficient bipedal speed that supposedly gave Eudibamus an disadvantaged slow awkward lizards we see today did survive. It would seem that the fittest do not always survive, and natural selection’s “survival of the fittest” is shown to not be true!
Ronald E. Houser
Laws derived from within humanity represent tyrants
Here are some thoughts on your editorial regarding Chief Justice Roy Moore’s removal from the bench (Banner-Herald, Nov. 14).
Did Chief Justice Moore put his “personal convictions before the law” any more than did U.S. District Court Judge William Thompson or the three-judge panel that affirmed him? After all, isn’t it extremely odd a Constitution that prohibits display of the Ten Commandments in a government building would itself acknowledge and honor one of those very commandments (Article I, Section 7 honoring the Christian Sabbath)?
Moreover, constitutional Ten Commandments displays are found in numerous government-owned settings, not the least of which is the U.S Supreme Court chamber in Washington, D.C.
Did display of the Ten Commandments monument “intermingle religion and government” any more than did the order to remove it? If the monument’s presence intermingled government with Judeo-Christianity, then does not its removal intermingle government with atheism? This question is at the heart of the issue.
If law has its source within humanity (a logical necessity under atheism), the principle that “No man is above the law” is no more than a nonsensical platitude, and judges who make the law are no more than petty tyrants. However, if law comes from outside humanity, i.e., from the Creator as America’s founding document proclaims, “no man is above the law” is a truth that protects each and every one of us.
Who is standing for this truth proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence? Has not Chief Justice Moore stood for the “acknowledgement of God” consistent with that truth, while Judge Thompson “placed himself above the law” by acting as the de facto source of law?
Ronald E. Houser
Founders were clear about role of God in our nation’s birth
I commend Ms. Katie Davis, an Athens high school student, for taking the interest and time to write a letter to the editor (Feb. 4). I must point out, however, that she is incorrect when she asserts the “one thing that binds us all together is not a belief in any God, but belief in liberty.”
The Declaration of Independence, the document that established this nation, unequivocally declared that all men and women are endowed with liberty “by their Creator.” One need only visit the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C., to discover that Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the Declaration and the arch-deist of revisionist historians, wrote, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.”
Ms. Davis reveals in her letter that she and presumably her fellow students have been deprived of an education that teaches them the true and complete history of the founding of this nation, and this nation is the worse for it.
Ronald E. Houser
Embryo becomes person at point of conception
Jason Hartford, in commenting (letter, 3/6) on Sen. Kemp’s vote on the Woman’s Right to Know Act, expresses concern for “a woman’s right to choose.” I submit that no human being, man or woman, has a right to choose to kill another human being without justification, i.e., in self defense of one’s own life or in defense of the life of another.
Every abortion kills at least one human being. The fetus (i.e., unborn baby), which was alive is dead after an abortion. If the fetus is not a human being, what is it? His or her genetic makeup is definitely human, and is uniquely his or hers, and not that of his or her mother or father. If one answers that the fetus is merely a mass of tissue, so is every person reading this letter a mass of tissue.
When did you, the reader, become a person? What do you possess to give you personhood, but that a human fetus lacks? Each one of us receives genetic information from our biological father and our biological mother. This can only occur at conception. If you did not exist as a person at conception, when did you receive the genetic information from your biological father that you without a doubt did receive?
Human beings that play God and define personhood as coming into existence at birth, could just as easily and justifiably define personhood as one year after birth, 10 years after birth or any other arbitrary point in time. I seriously doubt that anyone really believes that their existence as a distinct individual human being began at birth.
Ronald E. Houser
Constitutional framers obviously meant for our America to be created as a ‘nation under Jesus’
David Kravets of the Associated Press, in his report on the ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, quoted Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin as writing the following: “Leading schoolchildren in a pledge that says the United States is ‘one nation under God’ is as objectionable as making them say we are a nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation ‘under Vishnu,’ a nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god,’ because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.”
When I read our Constitution, I find that the framers, according to the Constitution itself, drafted it on “the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty Seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.”
To whom is the “our Lord” here referring? I think the historical evidence shows the reference can be only to Jesus Christ – the same Jesus Christ who, according to the historical record, died on a Roman Cross in the first century and rose from the dead three days later.
The framers who subscribed their names to the Constitution represented “the People of the United States,” and thus, it would seem, that the people of the United States recognized through their elected representatives that their Lord was the Lord Jesus Christ, and expressed that recognition in their duly ordained and ratified constitution. In other words, we are a “nation under Jesus,” or at least we were at the point in time when the Constitution of the United States was drafted and ratified.
Ronald E. Houser
God got it right, making best of possible worlds
I agree with some of what Michael J. Martin wrote in his letter to the editor (July 26), but he excluded some events fundamental to the Christian Gospel. God did create the world, Adam and Eve, but He did not “promptly kick them out into the world.” God only evicted them from the Garden after they disobeyed His command, i.e., after they sinned and brought death into the world.
One need not question “why God could not get it right the first time.” God did get it right, making the best of all possible worlds - a world wherein it is possible to love. In order for there to be love, there must be the opportunity to not love, to obey or disobey, to accept or reject. Thus, God created Adam with the free will to obey or disobey. Adam’s disobedience was sin which brought death into the world.
Remarkably, and thankfully, God had in place a plan for the redemption of the world and mankind from this death caused by human sin in the person of Jesus Christ, His only begotten son, who shed His sinless blood on a Roman cross to pay the price of all human sin, thereby bringing eternal salvation for those who put their trust in that one effective atoning sacrifice. He validated this plan by raising Christ from the dead after three days in the tomb - a feat easily accomplished by the Creator of all that is. Anyone who rejects this plan is a fool.
Ronald E. Houser
Removing religion from public life undermines nation’s foundation
I agree with J.D. Haynie that removal of religious symbols from public buildings doesn’t threaten anyone’s religion (Sept. 22 letter). However, the removal of religious symbols (i.e., the Ten Commandments that are much in the news lately) does threaten the civil rights of all Americans.
As our founding document (the Declaration of Independence) asserts, the essence of America is recognition that all human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Does this recognition make the Declaration of Independence a “religious symbol”? Without the “theological” foundation of the Declaration of Independence, none of our rights are secure.
In the words of Thomas Jefferson, engraved into the marble of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D. C.: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God?”
The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 7) recognizes and applies the commandment that demands that honor be given to the Sabbath when it excepts Sundays (i.e., the Christian Sabbath) in counting the number of days within which the president must return a bill to the Congress with his objections.
The systematic effort to remove “religious symbols” from government property, is not an effort to separate church and state but is an effort to subvert the very foundation of America. Our failure to recognize this can only lead to the loss of civil rights for all Americans of every religious belief, even the atheist.
Ronald E. Houser
It is sad to see such an ignorant baffon work in the respected law-firm of a family friend and be considered their constitutional law person.
Ho boy. This has me thinking that instead of Blogs and websites, we should all just be writing letters to the editors of newspapers.
The comments regarding the founding of the US as a Christian nation are total bunk. For clarification, see this site http://earlyamerica.com/review/summ[…]secular.html
The First Ammendment to the Constitution states quite clearly “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” and the Treaty of Tripoli (1797) states “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
I want to give the guy the benefit of the doubt and assume the editors cut down his letter until it made no sense, but… that’s just beyond my capacity for charity.
Oh! I didn’t see the extra letters after the jaw-dropping smiley. Yeesh.
It’s frightening to think that a lawyer would think the date of the document and the way the date was phrased would carry more weight than the active clauses of the document itself. Woe be unto this guy if he really thinks a contract signed on April 1 is invalid. His claim that the date of the Constitution negates Article VI is even more bizarre.
By the way, had the document not been dated “in the year of our Lord,” the legal assumption would be that it was dated under the Julian calendar. Noting that the Gregorian calendar was used was a normal, secular thing to do, in that half century after England finally adopted it.
I have to wonder what day of the week Ronald thinks this is.
If he says “Monday”, then congratulations Ron, you are a pagan since you’re clearly recognizing Teutonic gods! You won’t have much better luck tomorrow or the day after.
Update