The story is from last December:

Tear drinking moths"Moths drink the tears of sleeping birds"
A species of moth drinks tears from the eyes of sleeping birds using a fearsome proboscis shaped like a harpoon, scientists have revealed. … The team does not yet know whether the insect spits out an anaesthetic to dull the irritation. They also want to investigate whether, like their counterparts elsewhere, the Madagascan tear-drinkers are all males who get most of their nutrition from the tears.

Now, I'm not opposed to evolution per se, as IMHO theistic evolution is at least a possibility, even though there are numerous problems with macroevolution (for example, abiogenesis (generation of life from non-life), the fossil record, the evolution of sex, and evolutionary morality). But if macroevolution is true (few would contest microevolution) then I would tend to think that whatever explanation could be given for how these tear-drinking moths evolved would have to amount to a miracle. It is at least, as one blog commented, "weird", although I truly fail to see how "only evolution could produce" this phenomenon; unless a person's worldview considered evolution the only option, that is.

EarthLee Strobel gives his answer the question: "Do You Think Intelligent Design Should Be Taught in School?" See the video linked below for his answer. I think it's reasonable:

Video: Do You Think Intelligent Design Should Be Taught in School? (1:33)

This is one of several videos based on Strobel's book Case for a Creator on his site. All are fairly short and viewable online. I'd prefer he'd put them up on YouTube or something so that people could post them on their own sites. Oh well. Still interesting stuff, as well as the rest of Strobel's site.

EvolutionMy first and possibly last post on this blog regarding evolution. :) I basically have two short comments to make.

First, there seem to be some unanswered (unanswerable?) questions regarding evolution. For example: How did the male and female sexes develop through evolutionary processes? I can see how it's possible that most body parts could develop naturally, but here we have (if you'll excuse the crude terminology) two separate interlocking pieces, like a lock and key. I found an article here that explains the problem fairly well, "Evolutionary Theories on Gender and Sexual Reproduction". This is one reason why I think macroevolution is not a tenable theory.

Second, even if macroevolution is true, it cannot disprove God's existence. Some theists accept evolution, and are sometimes referred to as 'progressive creationists'. [EDIT Mar/04/07: I made a careless mistake in my original post. Originally I claimed in this post that Hugh Ross 'accepts evolution'. As the '8 Myths' page on Reasons.org clearly states, he does not. I apologize for this error.]

It seems there are still valid questions regarding evolution (Dissent from Darwin lists over 600 PhD holders from major schools who "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life"), and even if macroevolution is true it doesn't matter much (from a faith perspective). Strobel's recent book Case for a Creator is a good resource on relevant topics, as well as other evidence for God's existence from a scientific point of view.