Our newborn earth was a far different place then the one we call home today.  On a smaller scale, but similar to the emptiness of pre-atomic space, it was a canvas void of life, hope and god.  The molten surface hissed with noxious gasses and ebbed and flowed at the will of the gravitational big brother sun.  As it spun on it’s newly created axis it cooled creating a rocky crust, carrying the maternal resemblance given it by Mother Rock.

Gasses continued to be created and released by the still forming planet.  Sulfur, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen were just some of the byproducts of this raging torrent struggling to survive in its earliest phase of planetary infancy.   The heat of the still flowing magma and the cooling of the infant shell caused the hydrogen and oxygen molecules to join, almost as if in tribute to the ancestral electrons trillions of years earlier.  Moisture developed in the newly established atmosphere and for the first time in all time water formed and fell on the still smoldering surface in the form of rain.  It was as if tears of joy were flowing from the spirit of Mother Rock on her proud descendent planet earth.   And flow they did.

Great rivers formed which fed even greater lakes.  Lakes grew into oceans and after billions of years of constant torrents the oceans joined together, uniting until much of the young planet was covered with water.  Only one rocky crag remained jutting out of the almost all-consuming master ocean known as Panthalassa.  For a new mother had survived and risen above this ocean’s caustic waves.  The earth had existed some 4 billion years but now witnessed the birth of the mother continent of Pangaea.

Mother Pangaea was stark and desolate, her only inhabitants were her self-made mountains which grew to great heights only to tumble into the sea and increase her rocky shore.  While made of rock she remained as unstable as the chaos that created her.  Huge scars formed across her barren landscape from massive quakes which broke her apart into movable plates floating on the earth’s molten core.  Perhaps it was the hopeless desolation that caused Pangaea to nearly self destruct before she even had a chance to fulfill her destiny.  Or perhaps it was the spirit of Mother Rock that dwelled deep within her; guiding her to the eternal truth that only through destruction can we create life.

As Mother Pangaea continued to shift and move pools of caustic rain formed in her deep scars.  These pools were heated by the still-escaping gasses trapped deep in the earth’s core.  The pools heated to steam and rained back down onto the rocky plane.  The heat of day and cool of night caused changes in atmospheric pressure creating winds of mixing gasses.  There were great storms and hurricanes which battered Mother Pangaea before they moved out to sea.  The pools grew in size and as they did gasses and chemical elements mixed as if in a massive cauldron.  But this was no ordinary brew.

Within the pools lay all the elements of life, waiting as if for a cue to reach the exact temperature and mixture to begin their most remarkable transformation.  For Mother Pangaea was indeed doomed to the destruction of her moving plates.  Soon she would die in childbirth like Mother Rock before her, and become but a memory as each of her offspring traveled in their own direction creating the firmaments we now know as continents.

But before her final quake she surrendered her very soul to the nurturing pools of primordial ooze held within her bosom.  For it was her chemical elements and her loving heat that would incubate the inanimate into something other than just another new element.  As her pools reached their ideal temperature and the winds of toxic gasses swirled into the atmosphere replaced by an air supply rich in oxygen the elements combined into a single cell.  A cell so new, so unique, so infinitely hopeful that Mother Pangaea no longer rued her own demise. 

Having faithfully fulfilled her destiny Mother Pangaea willfully drifted into pieces having not only created the seven great continents but also having created the Mother Cell of life itself.

Our modern myth continues tomorrow.

As the “life and death” 11 day summit on global warming marches on in Copenhagen, scientists are joining together in a single ominous voice to damn all of advanced society for the conveniences we so callously employ without thought of the fatal damage we are inflicting upon our fragile planet.

“I don’t have high hopes,” said Josefino Comiso, a senior scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “But I hope that the participants could get to a good plan on how to minimize green house gas emissions.  “We need to change our mind frame – our values,” said Rasmus Benestad of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute.  He went on to say “In this problem, I think we are seeing the worst of ourselves in the mirror.”

The problem being discussed by these learned men, whose very livelihood depends on governmental funding for manmade global warming research, is that we fat cat Americans and other technologically advanced societies are too concerned about our creature comforts to care about the impact they are having on our environment and our society as a whole.  Ahhhh….Ted Kaczynski would be proud.

My first thought as I watched these men of science approach the lectern to continue their relentless onslaught against all things modern was “How do they walk with balls that big?”.

You see, here is my idea.  If they are so worried about all the damage being done to the ozone by the unbridled use of modern conveniences why would insist on flying scientists from all around the globe, and truck massive loads of support equipment to Copenhagen?  The last manmade global warming summit was held as part of the G8 conference this past July in Italy.  Once again, for that summit, planeloads of beard-stroking deep thinkers were flown in to express their overwhelming disapproval of the use of carbon emitting equipment, like the plane they flew in on.   From there all the necessary support equipment was crated up and trucked to Copenhagen where the same pointy heads flew into town to do it all over again.

They are calling this meeting a summit, I disagree.  Why not call it what it really is; an international sales meeting.

The scientists focusing in the area of manmade global warming create no product to generate a financial return other than their research.  Is it any wonder that their research would conclude that more funding for further study is necessary?  Is it any wonder that some of these high level research facilities would intentionally doctor the tests results to keep the cash flowing? 

With the recent economic hardships most businesses are now facing many have chosen to limit travel expense and use the incredible advances in technology to hold their important meetings.  If manmade global warming is truly threatening to end life as we know it on planet earth, wouldn’t it be incumbent upon these saviors of mankind to hold their meeting via nonpolluting computer links rather than flying all the attendees and support personnel to Copenhagen for an 11 day getaway?

The scientific comments being freely distributed by these so called researchers does not jive with the actions of the commenter’s.   Rather than telling the world what we should be doing they should be showing the world how it’s done.

But perhaps shaming the United States and other wealthy nations into donating the large sums of money necessary to continue this charade is in fact exactly how it’s done.  Manmade global warming has become an industry unto itself.  The goal of this “sales meeting” is to expand that business.  No amount of truth or contrary data will be sufficient to force these funding fanatics to relinquish their death-grip on the world’s wallet.

I may not be a recognized expert in manmade global warming, but it doesn’t take a science degree to identify the source of all the hot air currently being emitted in Copenhagen.

“We’re not saying that Darwin’s idea of evolution is wrong — that would be absurd, as we’re using his ideas on evolution to do this work, it’s just that Darwin simply didn’t have the information we have now.”

That is a very important quote from William Parker, a researcher at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, NC. It’s important for a couple of reasons; chief among them is that Dr. Parker is making sure his research and the results therein don’t cost him his job or Duke University their grant money. It is also important in that he is in fact saying Darwin’s idea of evolution is, if not unequivocally wrong, at least uninformed and outdated.

Never, allow me to repeat, NEVER EVER NEVER, in the history of scientific research has such a limited investigation based solely on the ideas of one non-impartial researcher taken on the scope and magnitude of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

Ben Stein recently released an excellent documentary movie titled “Expelled” which uncovers the seamier side of higher education and scientific research as it relates to evolution. In this fairly in-depth exposé Stein finds example after example of well trained, highly acclaimed and meticulous researchers who have lost their jobs and their good standing amongst their peers simply by suggesting, or even mentioning the possibility of, theories contrary to Darwin and the non-Darwinian Big Bang theory.

Many incorrectly believe that the data for Darwin’s book The Origin of Species was based on his lifelong quest to uncover mankind’s true genesis. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Darwin spent only five years on his famous voyage on the “Beagle” to Africa and South America before writing his book. That five-year period, which began in 1831, included the lengthy travel by ship from England to Africa, on to South America and then home. To suggest today, when it takes twice that length of time to simply get a new drug for hay fever onto the market, that this was in any way a closely controlled scientific study worthy of the credit it is given is nothing less than laughable.

Furthermore, Darwin was not looking to discover new ideas but was actually looking for concurring data for an assumption of natural selection that he already believed, having been taught that theory by his grandfather.

Darwin’s research was based solely on observation and then taking what he saw and manipulating it to fit the overall hypothesis. The vast majority of his observation was on plants and flowers and then taking that which he had observed and extrapolating it over to animals and humans. A perfect example of this is Darwin’s proposal that a hummingbird’s bill has evolved into the shape it is from drinking nectar of flowers that have evolved into the shape they are in to accept the bill, thus showing some sort of cross-evolution between plant and animal. As they are both relatively the same shape Darwin concluded they must have evolved concurrently. There need be no further evidence required to prove the theory than that. Darwin was called a “romantic materialist” and this example of unproven theory based solely on observation is why.

So why, in this day and age of unparalleled scientific study, do we still cling to the eminently flawed theory of Darwinism? Because it places science above God.

While it was not Darwin’s intent to eliminate an ultimate Creator in his studies, his limited and romanticized works have been twisted and remolded to just that end.

Dr. Parker and his research group at Duke have come up with scientific proof that the tiny appendix is not a “vestigial” or functionless organ as Darwin stated. Darwin was quick to conclude that the appendix had once served a purpose when our ancient ancestors were eating mostly leaves. He included it along with the tail bone, male nipples and other puzzling parts of human anatomy as proof that man had in fact evolved from some sort of androgynous herbivore that long ago had use for these now vestigial body parts. The Duke research team has disproven that by finding this little organ does in fact serve an important function in modern man. Darwin claimed the appendix was proof of recent evolutions and was found in only a small handful of creatures. The Duke team has discovered that the appendix has been around for over 80 million years and is found in nearly 70 percent of all primate and rodent groups, many of them still dependent on it for digestion.

Over the years countless other Darwinian tenets have been proven completely incorrect. But yet to mention the flaws in the Darwin’s theory is to risk being driven from grace, and probably your job, in the scientific community. How sad that the scientific study of ultimate possibilities would rather cling to a theory repeatedly proven imperfect than to accept at least the possibility of a prefect Creator.

I guess there’s just no research money in God. And besides, we would have to let Him back into school.

Perhaps if he was still alive today he would revise his statement to say “Nature is overcome by turning humans into garbage.” And if he wouldn’t say it, I sure will.

The unfortunate and ghastly truth is that today that is exactly how we view our most helpless and dependent humans, the ones not yet born. The medical terms embryo and fetus have replaced baby, infant and child in everyday vernacular. The terms once reserved for medical professionals are now bandied about by school children. The words have changed but more importantly changing the words has numbed the public consciousness. The change in mind set was mandatory if the pro-abortion political action committees were to succeed. It sounds far more acceptable to abort a fetus or an embryo than to abort a baby or a child.

And after they are aborted they are no longer human. They are now trash, disposable, garbage, bio-hazardous waste. The terms being used to justify harvesting these tiny human babies makes them sound much more like a wart or a tumor that was removed than a baby who had his or her future snuffed out in the name of science.

That is exactly what our new president is doing in justifying the new harvesting program of baby stem cells and overturning George W Bush’s ban on creating new lines of stem cells. As has been repeated countless times by those supporting this end of life “these embryos were simply going to be disposed of – trashed – thrown away (you pick the transitive verb) anyway. We might as well use them in the name if science.”

By its very nature science has no morals. It is facts and mechanics, equations and data. Science is not necessarily heartless but it is cold. Experimentation and test results are the goal. Fitting pieces into a puzzle and discovering what the big picture looks like is the game. Morality has no place in science, especially if it stands in the way of that next big discovery.

I am actually grateful to the pioneers of surgery that paid grave robbers to bring them fresh corpses for their scientific exploration of the human body. As repulsive as the idea of robbing a grave was, the unfortunate buried treasure being dug up, having lived all the days of their life, was no longer in need of the human shell from which their soul was released. And the use of those buried bodies hurt no one but has literally saved millions. That was until some more mercenary grave robbers figured out that it was a lot easier on their back and a lot more beneficial to their pocketbook if they just kill someone and sell the body than it was to wait until they were dead and buried and dig them back up. At that point it went from revolting behavior for the sake of science to capital murder for the sake of a few bucks. The mercenaries were caught, tried and hung. It seems that even in those dark ages of scientific discovery they understood the important difference between using that which is already dead and ending a life to make it so. Unfortunately, we in this age of advanced enlightenment have lost the ability to distinguish between the two.

It is not a question if left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative. It is a moral question of that which is right vs. that which is wrong. The business of harvesting human embryos just got a stimulus package from the American taxpayer thanks to this new president and his misguided interpretation of science over morality. And that priority is simply and unequivically wrong.

No one will ever know what these living, growing human babies would have become.

Maybe the answer to all our scientific questions lies in their potential rather than in their stem cells.