Valenciennes-Sochaux ou le match de la peur ! Cette rencontre entre les deux lanternes rouges du championnat promet d'être intense tant les deux formations sont désireuses de se battre pour remonter la pente. Ce match couperet, comptant pour la 15e

divimg alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.15.1/37577?ns=guardianpageName=UK+news%3A+Excessive+speeders+and+drivers+using+drugs+could+face+stiffer+penaltiesch=UK+newsc3=The+Guardianc4=Transport+UK%2CDrugs+and+alcohol+%28Society%29%2CCrime+-+UK+%28News%29%2CUK+newsc5=Not+commercially+useful%2CCommunities+Societyc6=Allegra+Stratton%2CDan+Milmoc7=2008_11_21c8=1121550c9=articlec10=GUc11=UK+newsc12=Transportc13=c14=h2=GU%2FUK+news%2FTransport" width="1" height="1" //divpA new six-point penalty which would see speeding drivers lose their licence after two offences is among proposals being considered by the government for strengthening road safety./ppPublishing a consultation paper yesterday, ministers put forward a series of new policies, including the creation of a formal drug-drive limit and changing fixed penalty notices into more severe punishments for "excessive speeders" such as those who drive at 90mph on a motorway./ppJim Fitzpatrick, the transport minister responsible for road safety, yesterday also announced pound;2m to fund the introduction of digital breath-testing equipment and the introduction of drink-drive checkpoints, both aimed at reducing police time spent dealing with drunk driving./ppLast year there were 2,946 deaths and 30,000 serious injuries on British roads; speed was a factor in 29% of the deaths. According to Department for Transport (DfT) research also published yesterday, the worst excessive speeders are on motorways and in 30mph zones, accounting for more than three out of 10 incidents. The study also showed that one in six drivers breach the motorway speed limit by more than 10mph. Excessive speeding is defined as driving above the limit by 10mph on motorways and A roads and by 5mph or more in 40 and 30mph zones./ppAt the moment, most drivers who speed are punished with a fixed penalty notice of a fine and three points, but the government wants to introduce more severe punishments, with "excessive speeders" automatically given six points./ppMotorists who broke the rules twice would receive 12 points and be banned. Government research suggested a six-point penalty prompted a change in behaviour, making most drivers unlikely to fall foul of the repeat offence. The research also showed that while many drivers stray above the limit, very few drive as much as 20mph over the limit. /ppThe government hopes to enable the police to act against careless drivers who admit fault with a minimum of bureaucracy. /ppThe document also contains a proposal for a formal drug-drive limit - 20% of all road deaths are caused by drivers on illegal drugs. Since there is currently no legal limit for drug users, it falls to police officers to prove wrongdoing, which has hitherto resulted in few prosecutions. Yesterday Fitzpatrick said: "There is no legislation in place like drink-driving where we could clearly easily prosecute anybody who does have illegal drugs in the system which is impairing their ability to drive."/ppMinisters will also consult on the question of reducing the legal alcohol limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood; Britain has one of the highest drink-drive limits in Europe. Campaigners would like it cut to 50mg. Yesterday, Fitzpatrick said there had been "very serious discussion" about whether to lower the limit during the consultation but yesterday ministers were advised to stop short of changing the limit without evidence of improvements to safety./ppRobert Gifford, executive director of the parliamentary advisory council for road transport safety, said it should be reduced to equivalent to half a pint of beer or a small glass of wine. "It is disappointing to note the government does not propose to lower the blood alcohol level. While the inclusion of a question about BAC [blood alcohol content] is welcome, the text within the consultation is less than enthusiastic about a reduction."/ppThe opposition welcomed the suggestions but questioned the government's tactics for increasing road safety. Shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said: "The government must realise that if they want to get tough on the most antisocial drivers, such as drug or drink drivers, they won't catch them with speed cameras."/ppThe AA welcomed the government's consultation, saying that two-thirds of its drivers supported the idea of higher penalties for those who break the speed limit by a "considerable margin" and 80% support wider breath testing powers./pdiv style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"ullia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/transport"Transport/a/lilia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/drugsandalcohol"Drugs and alcohol/a/lilia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/ukcrime"Crime/a/li/ul/divdiv class="guRssAdvert"a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yessite=Newscountry=(none)spacedesc=rsssystem=rsstransactionID=1227227727779112100421654622"img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yessite=Newscountry=(none)spacedesc=rsssystem=rsstransactionID=1227227727779112100421654622" border="0" //a/diva href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"guardian.co.uk/a copy; Guardian News Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"Terms Conditions/a | a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/webfeeds/1,,1309488,00.html"More Feeds/a

Valenciennes-Sochaux ou le match de la peur ! Cette rencontre entre les deux lanternes rouges du championnat promet d'être intense tant les deux formations sont désireuses de se battre pour remonter la pente. Ce match couperet, comptant pour la 15e journée de Ligue 1, pourrait sonner la fin des ères Gillot et Kombouaré en cas de résultat défavorable pour leur club.

pThis Sunday I'll be preaching on the topic of Creation in an evening series at my church. Our Sunday evening format allows for only short sermons and I am trying to distill the broad topic of Creation down to the most fundamental points. I have no intention of defending Creation against evolution or of refuting the various views among Christians that conflict with the position of my church's leadership (though I am sure some of that will arise in the QA that follows the sermon). But as I was thinking about the subject of Creation, my mind was drawn to this article I read a couple of years ago. It argues that Christians can and should embrace evolution and lays out the reasons we can do so while remaining faithful to the Bible./p pemScientific American/em is a popular science magazine with a monthly circulation approaching 700,000. Including foreign language editions, the circulation increases to over 1,000,000. First published in 1845, it is the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States. Quite needless to say, it is not a publication that is particularly friendly to creationism. In the October 2006 edition is a a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=darwin-on-the-right"column/a by Michael Shermer, publisher of emSkeptic/em, a magazine produced by The Skeptics Society, which #8220;engages in scientific investigation and journalistic research to investigate claims made by scientists, historians, and controversial figures on a wide range of subjects.#8221; His column is titled #8220;Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution.#8221; The column is a brief attempt to lay out six reasons that Christians should embrace evolution. I#8217;d like to take a brief look at each of Shermer#8217;s six points. He begins with statistics:/p blockquoteAccording to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their present form, compared with 32 percent of Protestants and 31 percent of Catholics. Politically, 60 percent of Republicans are creationists, whereas only 11 percent accept evolution, compared with 29 percent of Democrats who are creationists and 44 percent who accept evolution. A 2005 Harris Poll found that 63 percent of liberals but only 37 percent of conservatives believe that humans and apes have a common ancestry. What these figures confirm for us is that there are religious and political reasons for rejecting evolution. Can one be a conservative Christian and a Darwinian? Yes. Here#8217;s how./blockquote pOne immediate observation is that he makes a distinction between evangelicals Christians and Protestants, yet does not define these terms. In theory, every Protestant is evangelical and every evangelical is Protestant. So I am uncertain as to how we are to distinguish between these two. Regardless, we will press on./p blockquotestrong1. Evolution fits well with good theology./strong Christians believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God. What difference does it make when God created the universe#8212;10,000 years ago or 10,000,000,000 years ago? The glory of the creation commands reverence regardless of how many zeroes in the date. And what difference does it make how God created life#8212;spoken word or natural forces? The grandeur of life#8217;s complexity elicits awe regardless of what creative processes were employed. Christians (indeed, all faiths) should embrace modern science for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divine in a depth and detail unmatched by ancient texts./blockquote pI will be the first to affirm that the Bible is not a scientific text. Neither was it intended to be such. However, if we are to believe that the Bible is God#8217;s word and that what God has spoken is true, we must also believe that what God says about science must be true. When God says that the world was created by His command, we must believe it to be so. Shermer asks, #8220;what difference does it make how God created life#8212;spoken word or natural forces?#8221; The difference is that the Bible tells us God created the world by His spoken word. We are not able to believe in the Bible as God#8217;s word and reject Scripture#8217;s clear teaching that life was created from nothing and at God#8217;s command. I agree that #8220;Christians #8230; should embrace modern science for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divine in a depth and detail unmatched by ancient texts.#8221; But science has not proven evolution. It has not proven that the world was created in any way other than at God#8217;s command. I embrace modern science, but only so far as it is compatible with Scripture and plain reason. Evolution does not fit with good theology, for evolution and Scripture are wholly incompatible. If we are to embrace evolution, it will be at the expense of the Bible./p blockquotestrong2. Creationism is bad theology./strong The watchmaker God of intelligent-design creationism is delimited to being a garage tinkerer piecing together life out of available parts. This God is just a genetic engineer slightly more advanced than we are. An omniscient and omnipotent God must be above such humanlike constraints. As Protestant theologian Langdon Gilkey wrote, #8220;The Christian idea, far from merely representing a primitive anthropomorphic projection of human art upon the cosmos, systematically repudiates all direct analogy from human art.#8221; Calling God a watchmaker is belittling./blockquote pCalling God a watchmaker is clearly belittling, but I do not know of any Christians who believe that God fills this role. God is not a mere garage tinkerer who pieces life together from available parts. Rather, God is the one who not only created life as an idea, as a concept, but who created the available parts and who then assembled them in an orderly fashion. To suggest that God is only slightly more advanced than we are is to ignore the vast gaps that continue to exist in human knowledge. Humans may have been able to map the genome, but a great deal of work remains; an infinite amount of work. The more we conquer, the more we realize we still need to conquer. And one thing humans have never been able to do and will never be able to do is create life emex nihilo/em, from nothing. We may be able to arrange and rearrange the building blocks of life in some semblance of order, but we are not able to make something from nothing. That is the realm of God alone. Creationism is not bad theology, but is the theology of the Bible. It is not an optional doctrine, but something we must believe if we are to be men and women of the Bible./p blockquotestrong3. Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature./strong As a social primate, we evolved within-group amity and between-group enmity. By nature, then, we are cooperative and competitive, altruistic and selfish, greedy and generous, peaceful and bellicose; in short, good and evil. Moral codes and a society based on the rule of law are necessary to accentuate the positive and attenuate the negative sides of our evolved nature./blockquote pThis third point begins with a premise that is accepted only by evolutionists. As Christians we do not believe that humans evolved at all, but that we were deliberately placed on this earth and were made to rule it. To attempt to explain original sin through between-group enmity is to completely misrepresent original sin. Between-group enmity is unable to explain why it is that every human being, no matter his age, culture, race, or gender is sinful. It is unable to explain why we all do things that are wrong and why we all delight in doing wrong even to our within-group. It is unable to explain what is clearly spiritual. Evolution cannot explain original sin or the Christian model of human nature. It cannot explain the conscience, the soul, or sinful nature./p blockquotestrong4. Evolution explains family values./strong The following characteristics are the foundation of families and societies and are shared by humans and other social mammals: attachment and bonding, cooperation and reciprocity, sympathy and empathy, conflict resolution, community concern and reputation anxiety, and response to group social norms. As a social primate species, we evolved morality to enhance the survival of both family and community. Subsequently, religions designed moral codes based on our evolved moral natures./blockquote p#8220;Attachment and bonding, cooperation and reciprocity, sympathy and empathy, conflict resolution, community concern and reputation anxiety, and response to group social norms#8221; are all characteristics of families. However, all of these characteristics are as easily and even emmore/em easily explained by creation rather than evolution. Could God not have given us the desire to attach and bond? Could he not have made us sympathetic and make us desire to resolve conflicts amicably? Even a brief overview of the Bible will prove this to be true. To suggest that religions designed moral codes based upon moral natures is to put the cart before the horse, for is it not more likely that a moral code existed with God before creation was begun, and that our natures were created in a way consistent with this code? Is it not likely that God, whose moral nature included moral codes, designed us in His image and built that code into us? Is this not an explanation for the laws that seem so clearly to be written into the hearts of all humans? Evolution cannot explain family values and can certainly not explain more codes. A glance at the conflict over the right of homosexuals to marry will show the vast difference between an understanding of family as rooted in naturalistic evolution and of family rooted in God's creative design./p blockquotestrong5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts./strong Much of Christian morality has to do with human relationships, most notably truth telling and marital fidelity, because the violation of these principles causes a severe breakdown in trust, which is the foundation of family and community. Evolution describes how we developed into pair-bonded primates and how adultery violates trust. Likewise, truth telling is vital for trust in our society, so lying is a sin./blockquote pChristian morality has to do primarily with imitating God who is true and who is faithful. The violation of these principles may case a severe breakdown in truth, but far worse, violation of these principles causes a growing rift between creature and Creator. Christian morality involves human relationships, but only secondarily to the relationship between God and man. Evolution may offer some description of how humans developed into pair-bonded primates and how adultery violates trust. But the Bible offers an answer that is far more clear and far more likely: God created marriage so that human beings could emulate the relationship of Jesus Christ to His people. Truth telling is vital for trust, but even more vital to maintain relationship between God and man. Lying is a sin because it makes a mockery of God who not only tells the truth, but is the very source of truth. Evolution absolutely cannot account for specific moral precepts in a way that is satisfying. And, ironically, evolution is the worldview that underlies the acceptance of non-traditional relationships such as homosexual marriage. Could it be that evolution can be used to explain anything?/p blockquotestrong6. Evolution explains conservative free-market economics./strong Charles Darwin#8217;s #8220;natural selection#8221; is precisely parallel to Adam Smith#8217;s #8220;invisible hand.#8221; Darwin showed how complex design and ecological balance were unintended consequences of competition among individual organisms. Smith showed how national wealth and social harmony were unintended consequences of competition among individual people. Nature#8217;s economy mirrors society#8217;s economy. Both are designed from the bottom up, not the top down./blockquote pThis sixth point does not seem to fit with the rest of the list. While the other five have dealt with principles that are distinctly Christian, this one turns to free-market economics. Shermer may as well have said #8220;Evolution explains the American obsession with team sports.#8221; I know little of economics, free market or otherwise, so will leave this point as-is, except to point out that simply because two theories parallel one another does not make either true./p pThe article concludes with an exhortation and a passage from Scripture. #8220;Because the theory of evolution provides a scientific foundation for the core values shared by most Christians and conservatives, it should be embraced. The senseless conflict between science and religion must end now, or else, as the Book of Proverbs (11:29) warned: #8216;He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.#8217;#8221;/p pThere does not need to be a conflict between science and religion. In a perfect world, there would be no conflict, and, indeed, when the world is remade there emwill/em be no conflict. What we see in this debate is not a competition between science and religion, but a conflict between worldviews. These worldviews are wholly incompatible. Michael Ruse, a well-known evolutionist, speaks truthfully when he says #8220;evolution came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity#8230;Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and is true of evolution still today.#8221; Evolution is not mere science, but is religion dressed as science. Evolution, and the naturalism that lies behind it, is a full-blown worldview, and in reality, is a religious system that stands in direct opposition to Christianity. The true conflict, the conflict between evolution and creationism, is a conflict of truth and error, a conflict of God and man. Creationism embraces God as the Creator and Sustainer of the world; evolutionism rejects God replaces Him with time, chance and opportunity. The debate between creationism and evolutionism is by no means senseless, for it is a defense of the truth and a defense of the One who is Truth./pa href="http://www.amazon.com/?tag=dietofbookwor-20"img src="http://www.adgrab.org/www/images/amazon-christmas.jpg" //adiv class="feedflare" a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/challies/XhEt?a=4bpdN"img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/challies/XhEt?i=4bpdN" border="0"/img/a a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/challies/XhEt?a=GkWtn"img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/challies/XhEt?i=GkWtn" border="0"/img/a a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/challies/XhEt?a=lPQwn"img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/challies/XhEt?i=lPQwn" border="0"/img/a /divimg src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/challies/XhEt/~4/459612244" height="1" width="1"/

Après avoir concédé la défaite à domicile face à Lorient (2-3), lors de la 14e journée de Ligue 1, l'OM a l'occasion de se racheter devant son public, au Stade Vélodrome, avec la réception de Lille, dimanche soir à 21h, en match de clôture de la 15e journée.