What's So Great About Christianity?

That is the question addressed by Dinesh D'Souza in his recent book of that title. In it, he uses evidence from history, theology, philosophy, and science to show the incredible impact Christianity has had on the world. If you are a Christian, as I am, you may be saying "Well, of course! I've always known this!" But wait--you may not be aware of many of the aspects of history D'Souza addresses in this book: the biased presentation historians give of the crusades while generally ignoring Muslim atrocities, and the numbers of people killed under atheist regimes compared to "Christian" killings i.e the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc., D'Souza clearly elucidates these issues. His book is deep and complex, yet readable and understandable. I disagree with his position on reconciling evolution and creation,(At what point would man have been "evolved" enough for God to breathe a spirit into him? Were Adam and Eve not real people but rather archetypes of humanity as expressed in mythological literature? There are some questions here about the truth of the Bible) but in the other areas he addresses, I think he's right on the money. The last chapter becomes much more personal, as he describes what Christianity means to each of us as individuals. He ends the book with "Come quickly, Lord Jesus." D'Souza also has several other books that are worth reading:

The Enemy at Home
Letters to a Young Conservative
What's So Great About America
The Virtue of Prosperity
Ronald Reagan
The End of Racism
Illiberal Education

I especially appreciate the fact that he writes about conservative issues without becoming sarcastic, harsh, and vitriolic as some other conservatives do (Ann Coulter and Bernard Goldberg come mind.) If you want some good intellectual stimulation, D'Souza's books are just the thing.

What about really fat guys?

A FOX NEWS story today shares that some scientists think women "evolved" differences in their backs in order to compensate for the extra weight they must carry when pregnant, thus keeping them from toppling over forward. The differences include an extra vertebra, specialized joints in the spine, and a larger hip joint. "This elegant evolutionary engineering is seen only in female humans and our immediate ancestors who walked on two feet, but not in chimps and apes, according to a study published in Thursday's journal Nature" states this delightful piece. The scientists in question, Katherine Whitcome and Daniel Lieberman from Harvard University in Cambridge, and their colleague Liza Shapiro of the University of Texas at Austin, don't offer any proof that these differences have evolved, merely evidence that they exist, and have existed (according to them) for at least 2 million years. Because these differences are not existent in chimps and apes, they assume that humans adapted and evolved once they began walking upright. Since no fossils have ever been found that show evolution of such primates into humans, this is a faulty assumption to make. Now, if they were to find human female skeletons where these differences did NOT exist, and then some where they seemed to be developing, and then some where they suddenly existed, I would have to rethink my entire worldview. But as evidence stands, it seems much more logical to believe that women were DESIGNED this way ("male and female He created them...") and have been like this since, oh, Eve was created. Saying that "evolution has tinkered..." to produce these differences just seems silly.

But if it's true, then we should be expecting American males of the human species to evolve similar changes in their spines and hips within the next few thousand years, since many of them have similar weight distribution issues:

Just for fun this morning...

I'd like to direct you to an interesting story I came across by way of a comment left on "Tom in the Box," and a follow-up article that is more recent. I'm astounded. Let's just look at two statements from the first article, and deal with one in a serious manner, and the other...well, you'll see...

Sommer, an evolutionary anthropologist, said: 'It's untenable to talk of dividing humans and humanoid apes because there are no clear-cut criteria - neither biological, nor mental, nor social.'

WHAT?!?!?! Even if our DNA is 96-98.4 per cent similar, as scientists claim, can anyone truly say there are no mental or social differences between humans and chimps? Are you kidding me? The biggest difference is this: human beings are created in God's image, and given dominion over other living creatures. Of course, I believe this because I believe the Bible to be God's inspired, inerrant Word. Once people throw out the Bible, they throw out any sense that we as humans are any different from animals. This is a big push in evolutionary education. It reminds me of the Disney song "You (Are a Human Animal)." I can't remember all the lyrics, but they say something like: "You are a human animal, you are a very special breed, for you are the only animal, who can think, who can reason, who can read." Interesting, eh? Even though the song equates humans with animals, it also (and perhaps unintentionally) points out the HUGE differences between us. Can animals think well enough to form an argument or philosophize? Can they reason (and here I'm referring to higher reasoning, not "see--banana--eat")? Can they read? NO. In the second article, one of the chimp's friends says that "Being with him is like playing with someone who can't talk." Okay--is it really? Can he understand every word you say? Is he thinking coherent thoughts, wishing he could reply? C'mon, people! This is not a human being who is merely unable to communicate freely. He is a chimp. And because I believe the Bible, I believe that human beings are made in the image of God, and chimps are not.
The other quote:

If Hiasl is granted human status, Martin Balluch, of the Association against Animal Factories, who has worked to bring the case, wants him to sue the vivisection laboratory. He said: 'We argue that he's a person and he's capable of owning something himself, as opposed to being owned, and that he can manage his money. This means he can start a court case against Baxter, which at the very least should mean his old age pension is secure.'

Wait a second--did I read that correctly? He (the chimp, not Balluch) "can manage his money"? and needs pension security? Have these people truly lost touch with reality? How can a chimp manage its money? Will he line his bed with it, eat it, or poop on it? Does this man really think that a chimp has a concept of the value of currency? Then Balluch stretches the absurdity even further by saying that the chimp should be able to initiate his own lawsuit. How? Does Balluch somehow have telepathy with the chimp? Will the chimp be able to type his request up? (That could go WAY off into how long it would take a room full of monkeys....ok, I'll stop.) Is Balluch serious about this? Why doesn't he truthfully say that he and his organization want to be able to control the money that has been donated to the chimp? Balluch's "Association Against Animal Factories" has such notable acheivements under its belt as rescuing hens and liberating lab rats. So now we come to another, related issue: These people are elevating animals to human status while ignoring the plight of humans in this world. Since 1973 there have been over 46 million abortions worldwide (40 million in the U.S. alone.) Millions of children worldwide die from starvation or easily curable diseases like malaria each year, or lead lives of illness, with scarce food and no safe water. And yet these people are pouring their time, energy, and money into saving the life of one chimp.

I have no more words.