Save the Monarch Butterfly

I’m no environmentalist. But I love monarch butterflies. I live in north Texas, right in the path of their migration from Mexico.

Recently, I read a report that estimates that their population in Mexico has dropped by 60%. Being ever so skeptical of such statistics, I wonder if it’s really gotten that bad for the monarch.

But, just in case… Especially if you live in the monarch butterfly’s migration path, do a little something for the little guys. Plant some milkweed.

They love it. They lay their eggs on it. When they hatch, they eat only milkweed until they form their cocoon on it.

There are resources on the web. One site will send you free milkweed seeds. They also sell small milkweed plants.

So, do the little guys (and yourself) a favor. Help them out and enjoy the show.

Thanks!

Marriage is for me because I want it.

Doesn’t the argument for same sex marriage boil down to this: “I want it, so government must give it to me”?

Is there no consideration given to the reason government should be involved in such a personal matter?

Why should society care if two people really like each other? Why should society care if anyone feels a certain way about anything?

For instance, is it government’s role to be involved in any way in my choice of golf buddies? What if I really really enjoy my golf buddy’s company, so much so that I promise to play golf with him for the rest of my natural life, forsaking all other available golf partners? Should that be considered a legal marriage?

What if I meet my golf buddy when we’re both 18 and decide that our golfing relationship is so important to us that we decide to move in together so that we will be at each other’s beck and call for a quick nine (or 18, if you know what I mean)? Shouldn’t we be afforded the same marriage benefits as a couple of gay men who merely enjoy sex?

Well, shouldn’t we?

And if not, why not?

Marriage is for two. Why?

Gay marriage is in the news and in the Supreme Court. It is being argued that marriage should be between “any two people”.

My question to gay marriage advocates is this: Why limit it to two people?

I’ve argued that marriage is for one man and one woman (two people) because that’s exactly how many of what type of people it takes to make babies. In fact, it’s this ability that makes the institution and family law surrounding the institution necessary.

Gay marriage proponents say it’s not about children or reproduction at all. It’s about loving relationships that are just as “real” as heterosexual loving relationships.

I have no reason to doubt that two people of the same sex can have the same amorous feelings for each other that a person can for a member of the opposite sex. If I have to take their word for it, then surely those who would say that three women or five men can have the same feelings must be taken at their word, too.

It’s just as easy for me to imagine that more than two people can have “the same” type of relationship as any two people.

So, again, why “any two people”?

Butterflies: Proof of Creation

My readers may not be evolution experts, but I’d like anyone who happens to believe in it (as the alternative to creation) to take a shot at this one.

How would evolution explain butterflies?

What could possibly have happened to produce an animal that locks itself away in a cocoon and come out as a winged flying creature?

I understand that it’s all about millions of years of random tweaks, and such. But, how or why would a being wrap itself up in the first place? And would the first generations of caterpillars to have done so immediately come out with wings? What purpose is served by wrapping oneself up like that in the first place?

What was caterpillar life like before the advent of wings? How did they survive? How did they reproduce?

Would the first generations have stored up enough nutrients even to have survived their time in the cocoon, let alone what would be necessary to make such a marvelous transformation, AFTER having expended energy making the cocoon?

And what glitch caused caterpillars to be able to produce the material cocoons are made of, let alone the ability to form it around themselves at all?

Did the first winged butterfly have the retractible “tongue” necessary to drink nectar, or were there butterflies with caterpillar mouths, either in the beginning or at all? And how did they know to seek out flowers once they had this new mouth appendage?

How many butterflies could have been lucky enough to have stumbled upon flower nectar after they gained flight AND the retractible tongue? Enough to continue living as a species? How many would it take? At least one male and one female, right?

One might be inclined to chalk it all up to “the wonders of evolution”. But butterflies exist, and how they came to be should be able to be scientifically proven. Right?

Never mind. Don’t answer. I’m calling it.

Butterflies are proof of creation!

Marriage and Accidental Pregnancy

I read a Yahoo article today about opposition to same sex marriage based on the idea that marriage is the societal mechanism that encourages stable families among those who are able to reproduce: heterosexual couples.

Inasmuch as such a mechanism regards the needs of children to be taken care of by the people (two people) who produce them, marriage is really about sexual intercourse. Specifically, heterosexual intercourse. In fact, it is about the chance that heterosexual intercourse will produce children, even if it is not the intended result of the act.

I wrote a piece a while back on this subject. In it, I addressed an argument some who were quoted in the Yahoo article made: that marriage is not at all about procreation and that allowing same sex marriage would not affect the decision of a heterosexual couple to marry when an unexpected pregnancy occurred.

My argument is that the redefinition of marriage, if accepted en masse, would necessarily change heterosexuals’ view of the role marriage plays in their lives. For, if marriage is for “any two people”, then it cannot be about procreation at all.

So, having been collectively engaged in this debate for decades, has it changed in people’s minds? Apparently, in some, it has, as evidenced by the language used in countering the procreation argument. Even in today’s article, we see the evidence: “The brief also argued that preventing gay couples from marrying would not help or hurt the quest to encourage straight couples to marry WHEN they have children”.

This use of the word “when” seems to ignore the very real world occurrence of accidental pregnancies (the very subject at hand), as if procreation is always a well-planned choice. Not only that, but it shows that they’ve already forgotten (or chosen not to concede) the way marriage actually works to protect children who may be accidentally conceived.

The fact is that marriage is not to be entered into WHEN a couple has children. It’s supposed to be entered into BEFORE children are even a possibility. We used to know this. Premarital sex was considered taboo, not because of the sex act, but because of the likely product of the act. It was considered to be what it actually is: a reckless thing to do, because of the risk of accidental pregnancy, putting children in what usually is a bad situation.

When marriage is used correctly, a couple will have chosen to commit to each other, having considered carefully the other person with whom they intend to spend the rest of their lives… Oh, and with whom they intend to have sex. THEN, if they accidentally produce a child, the family will already have been established. It’s supposed to be proactive. And for the purpose of proactively providing that environment, it is uniquely beneficial for those who might very well produce children accidentally.

It’s not that marriage happens to be good for children. It’s that it is intended to be good for children. Planned for, yes. Unplanned, especially.

Prediction: Same sex marriage supporters who choose to comment here will either mention all aspects of legal marriage (property, inheritance, hospital visits, shared benefits, etc.) while ignoring the reason these aspects exist (familial duties, including those to one’s offspring), OR they will say that I’m completely wrong about procreation being even at all a reason for marriage to exist as a societal mechanism. Ignore or deny. Either way, they must break the link between marriage and procreation. It’s the only way same sex marriage “works”.

Science and the Supernatural

I just watched a debate between Peter Ward and Stephen Myer. The debate was over intelligent design.

Myer proposes that the way DNA works seems to suggest that it was designed. Just as a computer code can be studied for what it is and how it does what it does and therefore can be reasonably attributed to a designer. By studying a computer code, inferences can be made to the very nature of the designer. The same type of analysis can be done on DNA, he says.

Ward was arguing from the point of view of abiogenesis. That it is conceivable that chemicals could have come together in such a way that they would form self-replicating compounds, and that those would become more and more complex, until we have what we see today. A bunch of different life forms that are built of the same building blocks as were every life form previous: DNA.

The argument boiled down to this: Can science prove the existence of a creator? Ward says no. In fact, he says, “What we cannot do is go to the supernatural, because every aspect of science can only deal with the natural. Supernatural is required for intelligent design”.

Is it? Certainly, great intelligence is required. But supernatural? What is supernatural? If there was an intelligent being that designed the universe and life on earth, then that being would have had access to what we know as nature. That being would be as much a part of nature as anything we can detect with only our five senses.

In the debate, Stephen Myer explained that we regularly detect intelligent design. We do not assume that a piece of pottery found in an archeological dig, for example, was the effect of geologic forces. We know that it was designed. We may not be able to name the designer, but he existed. The existence of the pottery in its extra-natural state proves its creator’s existence.

The problem with stories about the creation of the universe and life is that they come with their tellers; other-worldly beings who imparted knowledge and imposed rules on primitive societies (allegedly). Today’s atheists (the science worshiping variety) don’t trust these accounts. They say that the stories of the deities’ feats are just too fantastic. And that’s fine. It would be as difficult to prove that Jesus walked on water a couple of thousand years ago as it would be to prove that I ate eggs for breakfast on July 19, 2002, even though it is entirely possible that I did. But they’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater when they also dismiss the one claim for which evidence still exists today; the product of the alleged creation: life.

Who invented the wheel? What if I told you that I had discovered an ancient text that names the inventor? What if it also claims that the inventor walked on water and rose from the dead? Knowing that the inventor was said to be a man, these feats would likely be seen as pure fiction. The entire account might be suspect. The very claim that he invented the wheel may very well come into question.

But we’re still left with the wheel. Must one crazy account, or a thousand crazy accounts of its creator’s antics negate its having been intelligently designed? Of course not. Though wheels are made up of natural elements, they cannot spontaneously occur in nature without input from an intelligent, natural agent. The wheel itself, in its form and function, is evidence of its creator’s existence, whether or not his name is in a book.

Peter Ward is wrong when he says that science can’t deal with the supernatural. Mainly because he’s attempting to equate it to intelligence. If he was right, we’d be left to assume that all intelligently designed objects and machines just occurred. Science must be able to detect intelligence and/or design, even without the intelligent designer being available for comment.

Intelligent design is not supernatural. To varying degrees, you and I do it every day… in nature. It doesn’t take magic, as one might call the supernatural. Intelligence and design are natural. The first thing needed to detect them is the desire to detect them. It is unreasonable and a sign of closed mindedness not to be willing to apply a test that may determine an object’s status as having come to be by either chance or design to anything found in the natural realm, including life.

The question is not whether or not science is the alternative to supernatural in explaining the origin of life on earth. The question is whether or not anything at all can be inferred to have been designed, using a scientific method. If so, then scientists should welcome the opportunity to apply it to life, if only to gain a little more knowledge either way.

What Evidence of Creation Exists?

I argue with atheists, mostly about their desire not to see evidence of creation. I see things in nature that make me think that this was all created. They continue to say no evidence exists. I think that many atheists want so badly not to have been created, that even the most solid evidence would be either ignored or dismissed out of hand by them. In fact, many times, their comments on creation end up in rants against religion or specific traits some sects have that they would rather not be subjected to. They simply don’t want creation to have occurred, so they say it must not have.

I’d like believers and former non-believers to comment on what evidence they have seen that supports their belief in a creator. Non-believers may also comment. I’d be very interested to know what they’d consider to be evidence of creation, if they were to see it.

If your evidence happens to be in support of a specific religion or sect, that’s fine. But I’m really looking for physical evidence. In other words, if a being existed who created the universe and life (at least on earth), then disappeared, never to return, what traces may have been left behind that would support the idea of creation?

All comments are welcome.