So which should be our priority, defending democracy or fighting terrorists, and what do we do if a democratic country votes in the terrorists? That is only one of the issues in the chaos that is Pakistan. Raising the ante is that this particular country, now thrown into political chaos, ALREADY has nuclear weapons that the jihadists would love to get their hands on. Unfortunately, our man, President Musharraf, is repressing moderate secularists as well as Islamic extremists, and maybe more so. Does anyone have any suggestions? This article is somewhat consoling, if it is correct, maintaining that the jihadists are few in number and that we need to support the moderate majority.

The “Washington Post” published a fascinating story on the latest findings in DNA research, which finds that genetic replication is far more complex than anyone dreamed just a few years ago. What struck me in the article were the descriptions of genetic processes as language, with the article full of terms such as “code,” “letters,” “transcription,” “translation,” “read,” “instruction,” “message” and even references to what can only be sentences and punctuation marks.

I’d like to hear even a conceptual explanation of how such embedded language could be a random development. It seems to me that language implies a Speaker. Meanwhile, this is more evidence that God created the universe by means of language, His Word.

The National Right to Life Committee is endorsing Fred Thompson for president. That’s a good group, but I remain confused. He opposes a constitutional amendment barring abortion and he has even done consulting, earlier in his career, for a pro-abortion organization. His Senate record was pro-life, though, but it seems to me that his pro-life credentials are no better than anyone else’s in the race. Why endorse anyone under those circumstances? Why not hold everyone’s feet to the fire, then back someone when the field has narrowed?