I imagine i could not love anyone more than I love Stephen Colbert. I dream of him regularly.

Well said on all points. That Colbert speech was inspiring on many levels. Thanks for illuminating one more.

What a great post. As a fan of Colbert and a devout Christian (perhaps a liberal one, by USA standarts.._) it was an interesting read...thanks for sharing...feel free to examine my blog...

Dorothy Day would have objected fiercely if you had called her a "progressive" Catholic as you have done here. She believed every one of the Church's teachings and was 100% accepting of the Magisterium.

Standing up for the rights of the poor and disadvantaged doesn't make you a "progressive" Catholic... it just makes you a good one.

I find it encouraging to see that Colbert is truly sincere about Christianity.

As a fan of comedy and a bigger fan of Colbert, I'm glad he doesn't shy from stating that he's a Christian as he's done many times on his show.

Satiring Christian Sub-Culture, in my oppinion, is fine (and funny too) provided it doesn't cross lines to blasphemy. I have not seen that on Colbert's show. He does it with elegance, unpredictability and balls.

i cannot comprehend that someone as sharp as colbert is a devout christian. i am shocked.

Why can you not comprehend that someone as sharp as Colbert is a devout Christian? What is so shocking. I find it odd when sharp people believe the evolution myth. Yea there are some mutations and what not and species do evolve a bit, but i have yet to see any fossils or other proof of transpecies species. Ive seen some paintings and photographs all wich have been proven frauds(most of the deleberet) by scientist wishing to futher there on carreers or trying to support there ideals.

such as Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

One of the most popular and familiar pieces of evidence used to bolster the theory of evolution – reproduced for decades in most high school and college biology textbooks – is fraudulent, and has been known to be fraudulent for nearly 100 years.

Most people have seen those drawings of developing human embryos next to developing animal embryos, and they look virtually indistinguishable. (The Haeckel embryo sequence shown purported to show – left to right – a hog, calf, rabbit and human). This has long been said to demonstrate that humans share a common ancestry with these animals and thus prove the theory of evolution.

These pictures were designed by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel. What few people know – and one of many surprises in the evolution debate reported in the July edition of Whistleblower magazine (formerly WorldNet) – is that they were fakes. At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was exposed in "Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries," a 1915 book by J. Assmuth and Ernest R. Hull, who quoted 19 leading authorities of the day.

Ernst Haeckel

"It clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos, or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form," said anatomist F. Keibel of Freiburg University. Zoologist L. Rütimeyer of Basle University called his distorted drawings "a sin against scientific truthfulness."

Yet, despite Haeckel’s fraud conviction and early exposure, Western educators continued using the pictures for decades as proof of the theory of evolution.

The matter was settled with finality by Dr. Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George’s Medical School in London. He found there was no record that anyone ever actually checked Haeckel’s claims by systematically comparing human and other fetuses during development. So Richardson assembled a scientific team that did just that – photographing the growing embryos of 39 different species.

In a 1997 interview in The Times of London, Dr. Richardson stated: "This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t. ... These are fakes."

Today – believe it or not – Haeckel’s drawings still appear in many high school and college textbooks. Among them are "Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas J. Futuyma (Third Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998), and also the bedrock text, "Molecular Biology of the Cell" (third edition), whose authors include biochemist Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences.

Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings are just one of evolution’s pillars now under spectacular scientific assault. There are many others.

Some of the classic evidences given in support of the "fact" of evolution are embarrassingly flawed. Yet they continue to be displayed as "proofs" for evolution. [The word "proofs" is set off because in science, this is a misuse of the word, yet that is what must occur for evolution to be a "fact."]

Three things can be alleged about the thinking of those who allow such flagrant disregard for honest science. They must be thinking that ...

1) evolution is a fact regardless of the evidence,

2) this is the best evidence evolution has to offer,

3) most people will not know the difference, so use it.

To their shame, many scientists and educators do not correct the falsehoods or fallacies presented to students in textbooks. Can a theory be considered legitimate if it must be protected by deceit?

The alleged missing links and evidences for evolution that are paraded before the public and unsuspecting students are often fraudulent claims. The remainder of the evidences are disputable and inconclusive interpretations or irrelevant to the debate.

The persistence of fraudulent evidence and one-sided presentations of disputable claims in textbooks to "prove" evolution reveals the extreme bias of evolutionists and their control of the educational and scientific communities. Having concluded that evolution is a fact, the evidence is obviously insignificant! The end apparently justifies whatever means is necessary to convince others to believe in evolution.

Check out your local school textbooks to see if students are being deceived by fraudulent examples and claims.

Blind evolutionary bias is responsible for the fallacy of using vestigial organ evidence for evolution. Concluding that an organ with no apparent purpose was evidence of previous ancestral history, evolutionists have paraded such examples in classrooms as “proof” of evolution. However, discoveries revealing organ purpose and function reveal that the apparent non-purpose of organs was the result of ignorance of its purpose. Another oversight caused by blind bias was failure to recognize that organs without purpose were due to loss of function within the species not a remnant of ancient history.

What are vestigial organs? “Elements appearing in various life forms which, although often quite underdeveloped, are no longer needed or functional and represent a carry-over from more primitive forms. The human appendix is an example. (Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, edited by Douglas M. Considine, page 2281).

"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities" (Horatio Hackett Newman, 1990, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case, p. 268).

"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vo1. 8, p. 926).

Evolutionist Scadding wrote: "I suspect that this argument; [functionless organs] gained widespread use not because it proves anything about evolution, but because it was thought to have particular force against some varieties of creationism….

"There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion [i.e., the organ has no function) can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist . . since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically….

"Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational science…. Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution" (S. Scadding, "Evolutionary Theory," quoted in CRSQ. December 1982, p. 190).

Below are a couple of examples of "vestigial" organs cited as evidence for evolution, but have been discovered to have function.

Leg bones in whales: "Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in the Right Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall." —John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84.

Evolutionists presume that similarity among organisms suggests genetic relationship. However, as comparative anatomist Michael Denton points out, this reasoning is not always applied.

"But the hind limbs of all vertebrates also conform to the pentadactyl pattern and are strikingly similar to the forelimbs in bone structure and in their detailed embryological development. Yet no evolutionist claims that the hind limb evolved from the forelimb, or that hind limbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source.
"There is no doubt that in terms of evolution the fore- and hind limbs must have arisen independently, the former supposedly evolving from the pectoral fins of a fish, the latter from the pelvic fins. Here is a case of profound resemblance which cannot be explained in terms of a theory of descent.
"Whatever the ultimate explanation for this remarkable pattern turns out to be, there seems little intellectual satisfaction in attributing one case of correspondence to evolution while refusing it in the other" (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pp. 151 & 153).

"The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes and followed homologous patterns of embryological development. Such homology would indeed be strongly suggestive of "true relationship"; of inheritance from a common ancestor." But it has become clear that the principle cannot be extended in this way.
"Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology.
"In some ways the egg cell, blastula and gastrula stages in the different vertebrate classes are so dissimilar that, were it not for the close resemblance in the basic body plan of all adult vertebrates, it seems unlikely that they would have been classed as belonging to the same phylum.

"There is no question that, because of the great dissimilarity of the early stages of embryogenesis in the different vertebrate classes, organs and structures considered homologous in adult vertebrates cannot be traced back to homologous cells or regions in the earliest stages of embryogenesis. In other words, homologous structures are arrived at by different routes" (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pg 145).

"The evolutionary basis of homology is perhaps even more severely damaged by the discovery that apparently homologous structures are specified by quite different genes in different species." (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pg 149).

"It is the rule rather than the exception that homologous structures form from distinctly dissimilar initial states." (P. Alberch Systematic Zoology, 34(1), 1985, 46-58).

"Although mice have a gene very similar to the one that can transform a fly's antenna (Antennapedia) into a leg, mice do not have antennae and their corresponding gene affects the hindbrain." (J. Wells and P. Nelson, Homology: A Concept in Crisis, Origins and Design 18(2), 1997 pg 15).

The question to ask is whether homologies are the basis for concluding genetic relationship or if the theory of evolution is the basis for concluding that genetic relationship is evidenced by homologies. Obviously, evolutionists pick and choose features they deem consistent with evolution.

In defending evolutionary interpretation of homologies, Berra wrote: "If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people" (T. Berra, Evolution and the myth of creationism,1990, pg 117-119). Unwittingly, he cites an example of similarity by creative, intelligent design not by genetic relationship. Similarity is not automatically evidence for genetic relationship.

As for molecular homologies, the theory predicting such similarities:

"began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone" (J. Lake, R. Jain, M. Rivera, Science283 (1999), p 2027-2028).
"With more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA trees" (H. Philippe and P. Forterre, Journal of Molecular Evolution 49 (1999), p509-523).

Incongruities found in organisms: "are sufficiently frequent and statistically solid that they can neither be overlooked nor trivially dismissed on methodological grounds." ... "It is time to question underlying assumptions" (C. Woese, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859).

"One of the key assumptions about the origin of life is under fire. The widely held belief that all life on Earth today originated from a single ancestor cell is being challenged by a theory that several different lineages evolved independently.
In his 'doctrine of common descent' Darwin was the first to argue that all life on the planet began with single 'primordial form,' generally interpreted nowadays as the first living cell. Not so, says Carl Woese of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In a controversial new theory published this week, he argues that the three fundamental types of cells that form the building blocks of present-day life actually evolved independently, not in an orderly succession from a common ancestor" (Andy Coghlan, New Scientist, 22 June 2002, pg 10).

Stanley Miller

Textbooks include Stanley Miller's experiment as an example of how early life could arise contrary to the law of biogenesis. However, his experiment did nothing of the sort.

Stanley Miller was the first to show that in a simulated early earth atmosphere (which is not considered valid today), amino acids could naturally form. Though his experiment was herald as a break through in evolutionary discoveries, and some claimed that life had, indeed, been created in the laboratory, Miller had done nothing more than demonstrate that in an intelligently designed and carefully controlled experiment it was possible to produce amino acids.

This is hardly spectacular since high school students do this all the time in chemistry class. What excited people about Miller’s experiment was that he did this in what was supposed to be conditions similar to the early earth. The atmospheric model he used at the time has since been abandoned.

Upon closer examination of his experiment, one discovers that Miller’s results showed that the evolving of life was not possible.

First, Miller utilized a cold trap for his experiment to prevent the destruction of the newly formed molecules because the rate of destruction was greater than the rate of formation.

Second, the products of Miller’s experiment contained a variety of molecules that had greater reactivity for amino acids than the amino acids did for each other. This is significant because the formation of protein molecules requires that amino acids react together, but Miller’s experiment resulted in the formation of molecules that would preferentially react with amino acids and prevent the formation of polymers.

Third, the “naturally” occurring mixture of amino acids that formed was racemic, meaning both left and right handed molecules of amino acids had formed in equal quantities. This was predictable, as well as unfortunate, for the evolution model because only left handed amino acids occur in living cells. But, right and left molecules are naturally equally reactive with each other. One would logically predict that in simulated conditions proposed by evolutionists that evolved cells would naturally possess near equal numbers of right and left handed amino acids, but they do not.

The unnatural exclusive presence of left handed amino acids in living cells, the formation of molecules with greater reactivity for amino acids, and the necessity of a cold trap in Miller’s experiment suggest that the formation of monomers required for the evolving of living as observed today cells is improbable. Further, experiments, since the efforts by Miller, have failed to add credibility to the possible evolving of cells by natural means. The known evidence at this time leads the honest and objective observer to conclude that the evolution of the cell is not possible at stage one, and that the creation model is the preferred model of cellular origins.

Sidney Fox

Another experiment often found in textbooks is Sidney Fox's polymer formation, the second step in the progression from non-life to life. Like Miller's experiment, Fox's experiment shows that life could not arise by chance.

Polymers are complex molecules made of long chains of monomers. There are four major kinds of polymers found in living cells: (1) proteins made of amino acids, (2) carbohydrates made of sugars, (3) lipids made of glycerol and fatty acid chains, and (4) nucleic acids made of nucleotides.

Evolutionists propose that monomers reacted to form polymers. Sidney Fox gained fame for demonstrating that he could produce proteins in his laboratory. As with Miller’s experiment, Fox’s experiment is not spectacular because it is done in laboratories everyday. Though Fox’s experiment was touted as a break through for evolution (and the accompanying spurious claim that life had been created in the laboratory) a review of his experiment shows that the formation of polymers is even more improbable than the formation of monomers.

To begin his experiment, Fox used an unnatural pure solution of reactants, namely, left-handed amino acids. One may wonder why he did not use a racemic mixture since that would be more representative of natural early earth conditions. In fact, one may legitimately wonder why he did not use the naturally formed products of Stanley Miller’s experiments since those would represent the molecules most likely to be naturally present in the early earth as hypothesized by evolutionists of the day. Though using Miller’s natural products would have been ideal and presented continuity for the experiments on evolution, the collection of these molecules would have prevented the natural formation of proteins containing left handed amino acids, which are found in living cells. Thus, Fox demonstrated from the very start of his experiment, that proteins can be formed under intelligently designed and carefully controlled conditions. He avoided designing an experiment to simulate early earth conditions altogether.

His experimental procedure also showed the improbability if not the impossibility of forming proteins in natural, chaotic conditions suggested to have occurred in the early earth. In order to produce proteins, Fox discovered that he had to heat the proteins to 175° in dry conditions for not less than two hours and not more than four prior to dissolving them in hot water and subsequently immediately cooling the products in cold water. The required timing and involvement of changing conditions more than suggest that such occurrences would not happen naturally. Rather than support the evolution model, Fox’s experiment showed that supernatural creation is the most reasonable and preferred explanation for the origin of life.

Russoroni, I think Colbert would have a field day with you.

You gotta love people who criticize things they don't (and don't want to) understand.

Colbert loves Christ. He has been saved from sin and death by the Blood of Christ. And in return he is sharing the gospel in new and creative ways so that others may hear the good news. That we are sinners, but Jesus took our punishment. He doesn't just have balls. He has the spirit. Bravo Stephen Colbert... from one sinner to another.

It's sad to say as a huge fan of Stephen Colbert and myself being a follower of Jesus Christ that after reading this quote, Stephen Colbert is obviously not truly saved. He does not truly understand Christ because there is only one "path" as he puts it to knowing Christ as your personal savior. You can not be true Muslim or a true Hindu and yet say Christ is your savior because both of those religions refuse Christ as both God and man. You can convert from being a Muslim or Hindu and choose to follow Christ but you can not be both.

Grant, you sadly misunderstood the entire point of this article.

If you think that you completely understand Christ... how can you be open to learning new things? No man truely knows the heart of another man and to say that he is obviously not truely saved sounds a lot like playing God.
This is from Romans:
"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what Gods will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.
For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you"
Romans 12:2-3
I would have kept going, the whole chapter is great, but I had to stop somewhere lol.

Look I am not trying to be right or wrong about anything, Im just trying to live what Jesus teaches.
In John, Christ says "This is my command: Love each other."
John 15:17

Its an interesting theme that Jesus had going for him... and note that it was not: This is my command: Be part of the Christian click and feel bad for those who are ignorant and alone in the world so that you can feel smart.

Im sorry for being sarcastic.

But I am happy that Colbert encourages people to think for themselves and worship God rather than bowing to earthly organizations.