Friday, 24 July 2009

Where's The Honour?

'Honour killings' claim up to 5,000 lives a year

The latest murders to be investigated as these so-called, 'honour killings' involves the finding of three girls and an older woman submerged in a car near Kingston ON. Invariably in these cases there is a murder, then a police investigation, then charges laid. And also invariably, it involves the murder of a Muslim woman, usually young, by a male relative, for not living the kind of life the male relative thinks she should.

But if these really are killings in the name of honour, then surely the honourable thing for the killer to do is, immediately after the deed is done, march directly to the nearest police station and turn himself in. Surely Allah approves of this killing, so he should be proud of what he has done, not skulking away in the shadows trying to avoid responsibility. Where is the honour in killing for honour, then trying to cover up what you've done? These aren't honour killings at all -- they would be more accurately and honestly described as 'anger killings.'

Take Care

Saturday, 18 July 2009

Women's spines evolved to curve as fetus grows

A scientist at Harvard University has analyzed why pregnant women don't tip over from the added weight in front of them.
I would love to have someone explain the exact evolutionary mechanism that would result in the outcome described in This Article.
I suppose that prior to this evolutionary development, pregnant women were constantly tipping over.

But seriously, according to my understanding of evolutionary theory, a female at some time would have been born with a mutation; namely, vertabra(e), "reinforced and slightly curved." This mutation would then have been passed on to her female offspring only, not her male offspring. As the article says, men do not have this spinal attribute. Now, first of all, would that mutation have been one vertabra, some of them,or conveniently, all of them at once?

If only one, then how many mutations must have occurred before all lower vertabrae were suitably curved and reinforced?

Would this have been while our 'ancestors' walked upright or on all fours? If while they walked upright, how did they survive before this mutation. Would this mutation have been valuable enough so that 100% all 'non-curved- females were eventually eliminated while only 'curved-spined' females survived. Females must have been bearing children for any number of years prior to this mutation, and most of the species would have continued to bear offspring, and survive, for any number of years afterward.

I assume that "all" females today, of every race, have this particular spinal 'adaptation.' If that is so, then all women today must have had this first mutated female as a common ancestor. Or are we to assume that this mutation occurred simultaneously in multiple females.

Whitcombe says, "The whole point of an adaptation isn't to be perfect, or optimally designed, but just to be better,..." (emphasis mine), but remember that an adaptation is not purposeful at all, but just an accident that sticks. Assigning a point to an evolutionary development indicates some kind of purpose, and therefore, some intelligent direction -- the complete antithesis of evolutionary theory.

If this occurred before our 'ancestors' walked upright, what would have been the evolutionary point of it. If both males and females were quadripeds, and this mutation occurred only in the female, what was it that first made her stand up on two legs? Why would she do it. There would have been no advantage, unless this first 'curved and reinforced-spined' female just decided to stand up as soon as her fetus grew to more than 3 pounds, while all the rest of her species, male and female, were crawling around on all fours. What a rebel!

Frankly, I find it much more difficult to accept this entire string of coincidences on faith, than that women were just made that way.

Take Care

Wednesday, 15 July 2009

A New and Fitting Term...

"I am afraid we are becoming a church of a fundamentalist left," said the Rev. Kate Moorehead of St. James Episcopal Church in Wichita, Kan (emphasis mine, JK)

...coined by one of their own, referring to the Episcopal "church" in the US and I'm afraid, increasingly applicable to much of the Anglican church of Canada.

Take Care
H/T Albert Mohler's blog

Monday, 6 July 2009

July 6 Update - Happy Anniversary

Today is our 41st anniversary. 41 years ago, July 6, 1968, in Islington United Church, Toronto Ontario (where my grandfather had been a minister), a tall goofy guy and a gorgeous girl promised to spend the rest of their lives together. And today I can say that this still goofy guy and this even more beautiful woman are still on their way to making those promises a reality. The adventure continues. Love changes over time, but true love has not diminished. I take more naps now, but I can honestly say, Eva, that I don't think I could ever have loved you more than I do now.

Happy Anniversary Eva.

Love, John

Thursday, 2 July 2009

Update to Previous Blog

Frank Lombard is a partnered gay man who was elected, and therefore presumably with the approval of alll concerned, to a leadership position in an Episcopal Church -- one that labels itself as, "gay friendly." He has been accused of performing lewd sex acts on a 5-year old boy whom he adopted, in front of viewers of his webcam, and offering to an undercover detective the use of the boy for his own sex acts in exchange for money.

After his church attempted to remove any semblance of connection with Mr Lombard, then reversing its strategy and listing him as inactive, the bishop of the Diocese of North Carolina has finally issued a statement.
"Frank Lombard is a parishioner of a congregation in the diocese of North Carolina. It is the bishop’s policy that in matters such as these, clergy will cooperate fully with law enforcement and allow the judicial process to run its course. In keeping with this same policy, clergy will not comment on investigations which are still in progress. The bishops and clergy of this diocese are committed to making certain that all of our churches remain safe places where all may worship and serve God. The Church is providing pastoral care and spiritual guidance for all parishioners who have been affected by this painful situation.”

One has the sense that the church and the diocese are merely busy circling the wagons, more concerned with the embarassment of the situation, hoping it will just go away, than in condemning the acts themselves. Granted, the man is to be considered innocent under the law until proven guilty, but one would think the church would at least express some kind of horror at such heinous acts, regardless of who was the perpetrator.

And I would ask this; what do you think the coverage of the story would be if it were an evangelical Christian involved. I expect it would be all over the mainstream media like Michael Jackson or South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford over CNN. As it is, this is one of those sensitive issues in which liberal media just doesn't seem to want to get involved.

What was once the love that must not be spoken has become the one that must not be criticized.

The Whole Story Here...

Take Care