Trump is stonewalling Congress. The House should respond with a formal impeachment inquiry vote.

President Donald Trump speaks after a signing ceremony for a trade agreement with Japan in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Monday, Oct. 7, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

On the afternoon of Oct. 8, the White House sent a letter to House Democrats describing the ongoing impeachment inquiry as “constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process.” This followed the Trump administration’s decision to block Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, from testifying before Congress earlier that day about his discussions with other U.S. diplomats regarding President Trump’s attempts to pressure Ukraine to conduct investigations that would be to the president’s political advantage.

The administration’s full-court press to stonewall the House’s inquiry only underlines the necessity of hearings, evidence and testimony to establish a full accounting of the facts. The details of Mr. Trump’s call with the president of Ukraine, overlapping in time with the delayed release of congressionally authorized military aid, raise concerns about a possible, deeply disturbing misuse of presidential power, which can only be resolved by a full investigation. While enough facts are still unknown that a decision on impeachment itself is premature, an inquiry is absolutely necessary.

Advertisement

The administration’s full-court press to stonewall the House’s inquiry only underlines the necessity of hearings, evidence and testimony to establish a full accounting of the facts.

Yesterday’s letter by the president’s legal counsel contains no convincing objection to such an inquiry. The letter claims that an impeachment inquiry must be authorized by a formal vote, but this is neither constitutionally nor otherwise legally required for the House to hold hearings or subpoena witnesses. Since the administration has already frequently refused to cooperate with congressional oversight even when unconnected to any potentially impeachable matters and declined yesterday to commit to cooperating even if an inquiry is formally authorized, this sudden assertion of an imaginary constitutional requirement rings false.

Neither is there any requirement at this early stage for the president to be able to see evidence in advance and cross-examine witnesses during a process which the Constitution entrusts to the “sole Power” of the House. House committee proceedings already allow both parties to make their concerns heard, and an impeachment inquiry is analogous to a grand jury proceeding, not a trial. If the House does not, during the full course of the inquiry, make sufficient allowance for the president to present a defense, then the proper remedy is for him to do so in the Senate trial that would follow a vote to impeach.

Instead, the letter accuses House Democrats of seeking to overturn the 2016 election and shockingly concludes that the president “cannot allow [the House’s] constitutionally illegitimate proceeding to distract him” and will therefore refuse to cooperate with the inquiry. In fact, such a manifestly absurd dismissal of a co-equal branch of government is itself an alarming overreach of executive power, which itself amounts to a rejection of the 2018 election that gave Democrats a majority in the House.

Nonetheless, even though its power to exercise oversight, investigate and call witnesses does not depend on it, the House should formally vote to open an impeachment inquiry. While Mr. Trump has no authority to require it of the House or to refuse cooperation without it, such a resolution would be helpful and prudent for many reasons. A House-wide vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry would follow the precedents established by the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries, reaffirm the House’s constitutional responsibility in the impeachment process and make it even clearer that refusal to cooperate with the inquiry is itself an affront to the constitutional order.

[Want to discuss politics with other America readers? Join our Facebook discussion group, moderated by America’s writers and editors.]

The apparent reasons that Democrats have not yet held a formal vote are underwhelming: the desire to spare vulnerable members a politically costly vote and the additional concern that Republicans would in turn demand subpoena power, which they could use to pursue the smokescreen allegations of misconduct on the part of the president’s opponents contained in the administration’s letter. Those risks are far outweighed by the benefits of embracing the House’s constitutional duty and requiring all its members to go on the record as to whether Mr. Trump’s apparent use of foreign policy for his personal political advantage and his manifest disdain for the system of checks and balances warrants a House-sanctioned investigation and possible impeachment.

Jim Smith
1 week 6 days ago

When people from the USA were interfering with our political system, (the time of the Communist Whitlam who was sacked by the Governor General for the most anti-democratic schemes ever seen in Australia) it was totally appropriate for our incumbent Prime Minister and candidate to seek help and information from the POTUS about anyone and everyone involved.

Head of state to head of state communications are UTTERLY APPROPRIATE and in the past have been necessary - my generation calls to mind the RED TELEPHONE - USA to USSR hotline.

It is as plain as a pikestaff to us in OZ, Pilosi is attempting a coup against the elected leader and if I were Trump, I would arrest her and try her for treason.

SHELLEY HIBBLER
1 week 6 days ago

Pretty frightening isn't it that people actually think Trump asking a foreign government official for help in an election, AGAIN, is just fine! I pray he's either removed via the 25th amendment for being a narcissistic sociopath and sending our allies to their deaths in Syria, by impeachment, or at a minimum we vote this crazy making man out of our house!

SHELLEY HIBBLER
1 week 6 days ago

The whistleblower provided enough well documented accountings which were confirmed by others. You have never needed to have witnessed the deed to be a whistleblower. However, in this case the whistleblower did have knowledge as many do who come forward against wrong doing. I read Trump's memorandum of his hidden call. I will say, he most definitely asked for a "favor" "though" immediately after the president of Ukraine informed him of his desire for more purchases. And to specifically speak about an election rival, that's absolutely AGAINST the law. Lucky for Trump, this is ONLY an impeachment inquiry. If I were an attorney in DC, I would do whatever I could to save our constitution.

E.Patrick Mosman
1 week 6 days ago

"which were confirmed by others."Who, when, where,what and how were his second/third hand information confirmed?

Tim O'Leary
2 weeks ago

Charles - he/she is telling the truth, at least in part, based on the public record. But, it opens the possibility that this is a made-up scandal, since many presidents might have these conversations. For example, what did Obama mean when he told Medvedev he would have more flexibility after the election?. There is an obvious political motive. He/she would need to be cross-examined. I did not vote for Trump and consider him a very flawed human being. But, I think the impeachment quest is really an undemocratic attempt to remove an unpopular president. It could well backfire.

Charles Monsen
1 week 6 days ago

And the best way to answer these questions would be an investigation, with the full support of the White House. This is the Constitutionally established procedure to address these issues. The Constitution is clear, and the Congress is acting within its power to see if the facts are worthy of a vote on articles of impeachment or not, and then those charges will be tried in the Senate. This is the process. It is not yours or mine or President Trump's determination to make if the charges, or accusations are worthy of articles of impeachment or investigation. It is the job of the US Congress, elected by the people of the United States, as explicitly set forth in the Constitution.

It should not be an argument that we all expect the President of the United States to follow the Constitution. But in this instance it seems the President, most of the GOP, and many of his followers would be quite happy to set this part of the Constitution aside in this case. That is troubling.

Tim O'Leary
1 week 6 days ago

Charles - the impeachment inquiry for Clinton and Nixon did have votes in the House and were bipartisan. So, a vote in the house again would seem the least partisan way, and it is sure to pass. It sounds like the Democrats don't believe in the prior processes and are afraid of something. Even Beto has come out for the formal vote.

Charles Monsen
1 week 6 days ago

As been said on other comments and in the article, there is no official requirement for a vote to begin an investigation. And in Nixon case committees started the investigation before the final vote. The POTUS does not get to tell congress how to proceed, that is up to the congress, duly elected by the people, and acting under an authority explicitly outlined in the constitution. Finally is there anything about the character of this president that would give you any confidence he would honor his word this time ?

Judith Jordan
1 week 6 days ago

Charles Monsen--
Excellent comments. Also, the Republicans did not join in to remove Nixon until toward the end when it became obvious that Nixon had committed criminal acts. That was the old Republican Party that did what was best for the nation and not their party. That will not happen with the Republicans we have today.

SHELLEY HIBBLER
1 week 6 days ago

Excellent statement!

Judith Jordan
1 week 6 days ago

Tim O'Leary

Obama and Putin. This seems to be the “go to comment” of the Trumpettes. I am always amazed at how they walk in lock-step. That conversation could mean a variety of things, including things that are benign. Obama has worked with Russia before to accomplish things as have most modern presidents. Remember how FDR was always trying to help the Allies and had to do it in various, creative ways (Lend Lease) because the Republicans insisted on the U. S. remaining neutral. Maybe it was something that Obama thought was good, but you remember how the Republicans always opposed him. So maybe it was a proposal he could get done after he was reelected.

"...impeachment quest is really an undemocratic attempt..." Do you think the Founders made a mistake placing impeachment in the Constitution?

Tim O'Leary
1 week 6 days ago

Judith - Obama's flexibility-after-the-election comment to the Russians could have been benign but imagine the howling of those inflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome if we overheard Trump say such a thing. In the same way, the do-us-a-favor comment has possibly the same benign interpretation, and it is only asking for an investigation, not a conclusion. Notice the complete lack of interest in the Steele document, paid for by the Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. Imagine if Trump had paid for a similar report on Biden. Instead, he only asks Zelensky to investigate.

Judith Jordan
1 week 5 days ago

Tim O'Leary:

If you want to make a point about how a president is poorly treated, I don’t think you want to use Obama as the one treated well.

The Secret Service had to increase Obama’s protective detail because of all the racists’ threats. There was a huge increase in membership of white supremacists groups. All of this happened BEFORE Obama was even inaugurated. .

McConnell and other Republicans leaders had a meeting and determined they would not cooperate with Obama on anything. Unfortunately, for them, the meeting was caught on tape, but that did not change them.

The other side had a fit when Obama wore a beige suit to the Oval Office. OMG, the country is ruined! Oh, yes, never mind that there is a picture of Reagan in the Oval Office with a beige suit on.

Trump led the mobs demanding Obama’s birth certificate. This racism was used while Trump never proved anything. When asked about it, Trump said he did not want to talk about it. Trump never has the courage to apologize.

Although Republican senators and congressional representatives were asked over and over if they believed Obama was born in the U. S., most of them did not have the courage to say he was born here. Their cowardly response was that they had no way of knowing where he was born. Even McConnell, the leader of the Reps., did not have the character to object to this vile rumor.

Trump demanded that Obama show his grades. The fact that Obama was on Harvard Law Review did not mean anything to Trump. Where are Trump’s grades? He used to brag he graduated top in his class. He did not. When journalists checked out the lie, he finally stopped claiming that.

The other side screamed again and again that Obama should be impeached for violating the Constitution, but they never could explain specifically what these violations were. Remember how all those conservatives walked around with little pocket Constitutions and would take them out and wave them in our faces as they criticized Obama? Where are all those conservatives today with their little constitutions?

I could give pages of this, but I won’t.

I would match Obama’s character against Trump’s character any time.

Just please remember, Obama is not the one to use when you want to show how well a president was treated.

Judith Jordan
1 week 6 days ago

Duplicate

SHELLEY HIBBLER
1 week 6 days ago

I did vote for Trump due to being a Republican. I can assure you I will NOT make that mistake next year, if he makes it through the election. Many of us here in Georgia's 6th district flipped parties because of our disdain for what Trump and the GOP officials (lack of spine) have done.

Todd Witherell
2 weeks ago

Resist. Persist. Impeach!

Todd Witherell
2 weeks ago

There is no political solution
To our troubled evolution
Have no faith in Constitution
There will be no bloody Revolution!

Our so-called leaders speak
With words they try to jail ya
They subjugate the meek
But it is the rhetoric of failure

We are spirits
In the material world

Are spirits
In the material world

Are spirits
In the material world!

P.S. Make the Police Great Again.

P.S.S. Dear Editors, Sting had a Catholic childhood,
is friends with Springsteen, and openly discusses
the influence of Catholicism on his music. You should interview
him one day. Best Regards, Todd Witherell

Jim Smith
1 week 6 days ago

You sound like an ancient hippy stuck in a time warp with a fried brain, Todd Witherell.

We did not evolve, we were created.
We are not spirits trapped in a material world, we are incarnate spirits/ensouled bodies.
Being social, we function with leaders in numerous hierarchies and rebellious behaviour and organised disobedience may well bring you to revolution.
Being moral and expected to be virtuous, we are obliged to pray for our leaders by direct command of the Lord of Hosts.

Judith Jordan
1 week 6 days ago

Daniel Monsieur--
I was surprised you said we were not evolved. The Catholic Church has embraced evolution and it has been taught in Catholic schools for years. Evolution is not incompatible with God. In fact, evolution is much more brilliant than the six days of creation story. Evolution is something God would do; the six day story is something man would do. Of course, the Church does not oppose you continuing your belief in the six days.

Alan Johnstone
1 week 2 days ago

The origin of species is being contradicted and refuted by good science month after month now that we have so many more tools and techniques to test the THEORY/GUESS. Daniel is quite right. Have a look at the website reasons.org for some real science - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

SHELLEY HIBBLER
1 week 6 days ago

Are you seriously responding like this? Todd, I enjoyed reading what you typed. Thank you. Yes, we are trapped in a very greedy world full of people like Trump. Of course we've evolved. Otherwise, we'd be extinct. I am sure many of us and our churches pray for our leaders, as I have. However, all my prayers haven't done one bit of good to stop Trump from doing horrible things. I pray for our friends in Syria. I suggest we do more that just pray.

Judith Jordan
1 week 5 days ago

Shelley:

I agree with you Shelley. Also, I am horrified with the scenes of Syria and our friends. It is sickening; they are being murdered. Some retired military officers were on TV and were appalled by what Trump did. They said our American soldiers were safer there than any other place there was fighting in the Mid-East. They could freely walk around and even show the American flag without fear of harm because of the Kurds. They also said the American soldiers there are very upset about what Trump did because they were friends with many Kurds who fought for us. I am sure the Kurds hate us now and I can’t blame them. Who in the world is going to believe America’s word now?

Trump defended his actions and said the Kurds did not fight for us in WWII. Huh? Turkey was neutral during the war, but sold materials to the Nazis. That doesn’t seem to bother him, but he would not know that. Reporters asked about all the ISIS prisoners who might get away. Trump said they are going to Europe, like that is just fine. Most European countries are our allies. Plus, ISIS could easily get to our country. His irresponsibility is malevolent.

Todd Witherell
1 week 6 days ago

Ancient, yes. Hippie, not quite.
If you don't believe evolution is real, ask your local
middle school if you can sit in on a 7th grade
science class. Don't cower in the back,
she may not see you. Gotta sit up front
near the teacher if you can if you wanna
learn anything.

Have a nice day, Mr. Monsieur.

Vive La France!

J Cosgrove
1 week 6 days ago

I doubt you want to talk about evolution. Please define what you mean by it. Darwinian evolution has been shown to be useful for only small changes, definitely not for the existence of human beings. Darwinian ideas are the basis for modern genetics not the origin of species which remain a mystery to scientists and especially to a 7th grade science teacher who just repeats the nonsense in the book being used. This is not the place to discuss it but topics do appear here on science

Judith Jordan
1 week 5 days ago

J Cosgrove:
I am not a scientist, but I have a strong belief in science. I am perplexed why you say our origins remain a mystery to scientists. The scientists in this field of study overwhelmingly believe humans evolved. I think you would find it almost impossible to find professors in our universities, except for some religious schools, who deny this.

I recommend you read Stephen J. Gould. He has passed away. He was a paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also a professor at Harvard and at NYU. He was one of the most influential and widely read authors of popular science of his generation. He was very good at explaining science to none-scientists. He wrote essays in the Natural History Magazine, which helped him to become so well known outside of the scientific community. You can easily find him online and his books are on Amazon or the libraries.

He used to debate the creationists. They complained to him that science changed its positions. He said yes that is what science does. When you learn something new you have to modify or change your position.

Good luck.

J Cosgrove
1 week 5 days ago

The simple answer is that no one knows how species arrived on the scene. Scientists commit the logical fallacy of “begging the question”. In their conclusions. They assume it happened naturally but have no proof of this. You cannot make a valid conclusion by assuming it is already true. I’m not arguing there is not a natural cause, just that no one has a clue how it happened. Certainly not by anything that Darwin or the current evolution of his theory entails. I’m well aware of Gould who was aware of the issue too. I’m a science junkie.

J Cosgrove
1 week 5 days ago

Gould proposed something called punctuated equilibrium which essentially said something was developing latently till it emerged suddenly to change the outward form of a species. Trouble is there is no known process that works this way. The problem with any natural theory of evolution is how do proteins arise. The scientists know these problems but they hide it from entering the textbooks because they are afraid of giving any credit to a creationist. But Catholics must be creationists. There are many forms of creationism.

J Cosgrove
1 week 5 days ago

I said above, this is not the place to discuss evolution. Just one of the commenters made an absurd remark trying to put another person down when he was the ignorant one. Nothing new here. I first became aware of this in the 1990's when I heard professors were being suppressed for doubting Darwin. Till then I thought Darwin's ideas explained evolution. I then found out they don't.

Judith Jordan
1 week 3 days ago

J Cosgrove---
I just never know what to say when scientists overwhelming endorse a concept and people, who are not scientists. reject it. I don’t understand that. Scientists in the field of evolution have shown that humans evolved. Gould said evolution is no longer a theory; it is fact. No professor who would deny this could get a job in a good university or even in most universities.

I am a Catholic and I am not a creationist. Most Catholics I know believe in evolution. Years ago, I saw an interview of a priest who was a scientist and in charge of the science department (or whatever name they give it; I can’t remember) in the Vatican. He was asked about evolution and creationism. He said evolution is fact and creationism is a religious story you believe on faith…two very different things.

Science follows the evidence and goes where the evidence leads to discover facts. Creationism works in a totally anti-scientific way. It starts with the conclusion, the six-day creation, and then tries to find evidence that proves it. I don’t know what their problem is. If they want to believe in creationism then fine.

You also go into conspiracies that the scientists are hiding things and not putting them in their text books. How do you know that? I assume these accusations come from the creationists.

Professor Richard Hofstadter was considered one of our great historians and he won two Pulitzer Prizes. He wrote a book, “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.” He traces how from the beginning of our country there has been a streak of conspiracy minded, anti-intellectuals. Unfortunately, today those views are heightened.

J Cosgrove
1 week 3 days ago

You are digging yourself deeper into a hole. You have no idea what I know but will just discredit it anyway. There is no proof that humans evolved. I would love to see it. Humans differ in DNA from its nearest biological neighbor, Chimpanzees by a few thousand coding sequences. What they differ in is the massive number of control mechanism for the expression of proteins that sit above the DNA and in the DNA itself. There is no known biological process that can account for this developing.

J Cosgrove
1 week 3 days ago

Creationism is just that something was created by a much higher intelligence. As a Catholic you must believe that. The question becomes just what and when did this creation event or events take place. The common ploy is for those discrediting creationism is to point to the Young Earth Creationist who advocate a 6 day event about 4-6 thousand years ago. But any intervention by a superior intelligence is a creation event. Jesus is a prime example of a creation event.

J Cosgrove
1 week 3 days ago

I assume you heard of the following

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth..,Through him all things were made.

J Cosgrove
1 week 3 days ago

As I said there is no evidence for the origin of species by any natural process. Yes, some very minor changes can happen by mutations which will persist. But nothing major. And life is extremely complicated which means all these interlocking elements which are very unlikely must have an individual path to existence and must work with the other elements, sometimes thousands, that are also unlikely. Nothing explains this.

Judith Jordan
1 week 2 days ago

J Cosgrove:

Tom Nichols is a conservative and a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and at the Harvard Extension School. His specialties are in Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs. I was watching CSPAN and saw him give an excellent speech about his book, “The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters.”

Nichols condemns the “many forces trying to undermine the authority of experts in the United States. He blames higher education, the internet, and the explosion of media options for the anti-expertise and anti-intellectual sentiment which he sees as being on the rise. While conceding that experts do sometimes fail, he says the best answer to this is the self-correcting presence of other experts to recognize and rectify systemic failures.”

“Paradoxically, with the increasingly democratic dissemination of information, rather than producing an educated public, it has instead created an army of ill-informed and angry citizens who denounce intellectual achievement. Everyone knows everything and individuals believe themselves to be on an equal intellectual footing with the expert.” This occurs even when the individual has no or very little study or knowledge in that area of expertise. The individual may have his own expertise in a different area, I am talking about challenging areas of knowledge that is outside that individuals’ expertise.

I like to watch CSPAN on Saturdays and Sundays. They have two full days of historians, political scientists, economists, etc. discussing issues on a panel; or individually giving speeches on their recent research or book. The individuals are liberals, moderates, and conservatives. It is very educational and worth watching.

J Cosgrove
1 week 2 days ago

What has this to do with evolution? I ask you to produce evidence which I know doesn’t exist. How do I know it doesn’t exist. I have literally read over 40 books on it and never saw it. Nor when presented with the request to provide it, does anyone step up. At a conference 10 years ago at Stanford, two of the most famous evolutionary biologists, Peter and Rosemary Grant said it takes 22 million years to form a new bird species. Do the math. At that rate very little changes by natural processes.

Judith Jordan
1 week 2 days ago

J Cosgrove:
You never responded to my comment about your belief in conspiracies about the professors.

J Cosgrove
1 week 2 days ago

There is concrete published data that disputes all the theories of natural evolution. None appear in any biology books. But there lots in these books on Darwin and his ideas which have never been shown to produce anything. Why is this ignorance allowed? Again this does not mean there isn’t a natural explanation. It just means they haven’t a clue what it is.

Judith Jordan
1 week 2 days ago

Duplicate

Judith Jordan
1 week 2 days ago

Duplicate

Judith Jordan
1 week 2 days ago

J Cosgrove:

I am digging myself deeper into a hole?
I don’t even understand your comment. Of course I don’t know what you know. I am responding to what you wrote.
I believe what the scientists in evolution have discovered, but you just discredit them.
I believe when humans evolved that is when God gave them a soul. That is a faith belief, not science.
There is nothing in the Apostles' Creed that disagrees with evolution. People of faith who believe in evolution, believe God created them through evolution.
Again, I stand with the scientists.

J Cosgrove
1 week 2 days ago

You know nothing of the controversy Yet, you continue to defend the indefensible. You just assume I am wrong. But there are mountains of evidence to show I am right and none to support your position. Yes, you keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. Richard Dawkins gave the game away several years ago when he admitted that if there was evidence of an intelligent source billions of years ago, it would explain everything.

J Cosgrove
1 week 1 day ago

I am hesitant to give you references since they will be technical in nature. But try these if you think you can understand them

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

Judith Jordan
1 week 1 day ago

J Cosgrove:
I shall try to struggle through them.

Judith Jordan
1 week 1 day ago

J Cosgrove:
I wrote about Tom Nicholas because it goes to the issue of what I discussed before. People with no formal training in a particular area think they know more than the experts in that area. There was a time in our country when people believed in science and listened to scientists. Now that has been diminished.

Produce evidence? I told you to read Gould because he has published so much on this topic, but you don’t believe him either.

You claim there is a mountains of evidence to show your beliefs and none of it is the biology books? Why is that? Scientists would say it is not valid. You did not answer my question about your conspiracy that professors will not permit the work in the biology books. First, people are free to write biology books to deny evolution. Now you have to believe there is a conspiracy among publishers to not publish the books, Why would professors conspire like that? Are you saying all these scientists are dishonest?

Published data that disputes all the theories? You know about this material, so I suppose others know too. I assume most of this data comes from creationists.

Richard Dawkins. This is what creationists do. They take a statement out of context and present it as fact. His comment is something that scientists do not claim. They merely discuss as to what other ways all the evidence could have begun.

I don’t know what more I can do. If you reject the studies of the scientists in this area, then I certainly can’t persuade you. As the saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.”

You are a creationist and I am not. I do not object to what you believe, but you seem so insistent about what I must believe. We do not agree and there it is.

Below is an article about Peter and Rosemary Grant. They appear to hold positions that you disagree with.
See, https://www.wired.com/2016/10/legendary-biologists-clocked-evolutions-astonishing-speed/

Below is an article to read. As you know, Scientific American is a respected publication.
“15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

J Cosgrove
1 week 1 day ago

You make accusations that you have no information on. You call me a creationist. What do you mean by that? Incredible distortion. You can not be a Catholic and not believe God intervened in this world. So every Catholic must be a creationist. It is just what and when.

J Cosgrove
1 week 1 day ago

There is a video that shows Rosemary Grant making her claim with her husband Peter at her side. It was at s conference at Stanford for the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth. Did you know Darwin and Lincoln were born on the same day? The Grants are the experts on Darwin’s finches and they showed all the finches are one species even though they vary in size, coloration, beak shape and mating habits. They all can inner breed which is the primary description os a species though this can be controversial. For example group A can breed with Group B who can breed with Group C but Group C cannot breed with Group A. So are they all the same species?

J Cosgrove
1 week 1 day ago

There is nothing in the Scientific American article that disputes anything I have said. They don’t define what a creationist is but I assume they are referring to Young Earth Creationists. Since that doesn’t describe me even remotely or what I am claiming in any way, what they say is irrelevant to my claims. Also the article is hardly science but a polemic and very deceptive in places. Especially the short discussion on proteins. I saw nothing in the article to refute anything I have said. It’s often vague. Why?

J Cosgrove
1 week 1 day ago

Ironic, the article shows the Darwin finches which are actually not an example of macro evolution.

Before you try posting anything else, define “creationist” and define “evolution” so you are not distorting anything. These words have several different meanings. You use them in various ways. So try to be consistent.

Judith Jordan
1 week 1 day ago

J Cosgrove--
You keep dancing around creationism but claim I was wrong that you are one. OK. Why don’t you tell me what you are instead of being opaque about it? As for me, I believe in evolution and though science does not have all the answers on everything, including exactly how humans evolved, they do know humans evolved.

You said, “You cannot be a Catholic and not believe God intervened in this world.” I already told you more than once, I do believe God intervened. When humans evolved, that is when God gave them a soul. I don’t know why you keep insisting I don’t believe God intervened. You get angry when you think I make assumptions about you and you tell me I am wrong. When you insist I don’t believe God intervened, then you are wrong about what I believe. Sometimes it seems like you don’t read what I wrote.

Despite the tape you saw, and I believe you did, I feel you were misleading about the Grants’ position on evolution.

I did not expect the Scientific American article to change your mind, or anything else for that matter. It was just a review about how evolutionists view creationists.

J Cosgrove
1 week ago

I believe God created the universe. That makes me a creationist. Every Catholic must believe that so every Catholic must be a creationist. God also created a universe that is incredibly fine tuned for life. After that God intervened in the world countless times and each time is a creation event. I said Jesus or the second Person of the Trinity as human was a creation event. Every time one prays for something they are asking for God to intervene and affect an event. We ask for grace for ourselves and for others. Each time the grace is given is a creation event.

Advertisement

The latest from america

This week on “Inside the Vatican,” we devote an entire episode to the Amazon synod, which just entered its final week.
Colleen DulleOctober 23, 2019
White country church and U.S. flag (iStock)
Signatories of two recent open letters, one embracing a “new nationalism” and the other warning of its dangers, engage each other's concerns and questions.
David AlbertsonOctober 22, 2019
 Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu of Kinshasa, Congo, speaks at a news conference after a session of the Synod of Bishops for the Amazon at the Vatican Oct. 22, 2019. At left is Bishop Karel Choennie of Paramaribo, Suriname. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
Global trade means that even consumers’ decisions leave a footprint in distant countries.
October 22, 2019
The connection between the Amazon region and the church in the United States runs deeper than it might first appear.
Kevin JacksonOctober 22, 2019