In mid-February a friend of mine mentioned that a few years ago he started a personal tradition of fasting during the Lenten season leading up to the celebration of Easter. He said that the impact the experience had on him the first year he attempted it was powerful and had led him to continue the practice every year since. He didn't tell me what he meant by "powerful" but he challenged me to give it a try.
Coincidentally, I had been considering doing exactly that, though on a much smaller scale than he suggested. My friend had researched the issue and found that the original practice of the monks who instituted Lenten fasting was to fast every day except Sunday for the 40 days leading up to Easter Sunday. The monks apparently believed that Sunday, being a day of rest, should also include resting from the practice of fasting. So, though he was not in any way Catholic, my friend had decided to do the same thing. He suggested that instead of going directly to a full-blown fast, I should wean my way into it by eating only fruits and vegetables for the first week. He told me this on the day before Lent began.
The next morning (after breakfast), I decided that instead of just teaching and talking about the spiritual disciplines (you will find a good summary of what they are in a blog series by Ken Boa here: Spiritual Disciplines, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3), I might actually try putting them into practice. And so, almost on a whim, I vowed to give it a shot. I had no idea what I had signed up for.
Before I go any further, please understand that I realize the whole subject of the "spiritual disciplines" can be controversial. There are some who attribute these practices to eastern religious influences, to the occult, or to a dualistic, works-based view of spirituality. These can include unbiblical ideas like "learning to hear God's voice," adopting Gnostic concepts, or succumbing to the false notion of Catholic asceticism and the like. I understand and agree with those concerns. I am not addressing those here. My only goal during this whole ordeal was to use fasting as a tool to recognize my own self-centeredness and to redirect the energy I usually spend thinking about me to instead think about the God who sustains me.
I took my friend's advice to institute a purely fruit and vegetable diet (except that I added nuts to the list because I was a wimp) and it was only a matter of hours before the effects were obvious -- mostly when I had to drag myself kicking and screaming out of the pantry I frequent all-too-often. This was the first lesson I drew from what came to be an eye-opening, 40-day excursion into self-discipline and prayer. It is not about what you fast from or how far you go with your commitment. It is all about making the commitment in the first place. I found that when I put the brakes on my self-indulgent nature and forced myself to focus upward or to say a prayer - no matter how short or un-lofty - my propensity for the former gradually morphed into my practice of the latter. After a couple of weeks the practice took less and less effort.
Fasting is not meant to make us "better" or more "spiritual." It goes without saying that it should never be used as a self-serving method of impressing other people with the awesomeness of your own humility (see: Matthew 6:16). It seems to me that anyone who really understands the purpose of fasting also understands that doing it with the right intention means that no one will ever know you are doing it ... until you write about it on your blog, of course.
In other words, I found out what my friend meant when he described his fasting experiences as "powerful." The power in this or any other spiritual discipline comes in recognizing just how much we don't think about what we should be thinking about. The power comes in recognizing that we are powerless in every way that really matters. The power comes in the tangible realization that the most impactful aspects of this life we are living are the ones that are intangible.
When you recognize the Source of that power and recognize that it does not reside in your own head, you can go revert to your old ways of doing things (as I have) but you never go all the way back. You can't. And that's the point.
Two and a half weeks ago, my dermatologist performed a Moh's surgery procedure on me to remove a patch of squamous cell skin cancer from the inside of the bridge of my nose. It really is more of a nuisance than a serious threat but the healing process has not been fun. It was painful at first and came with a swollen, partial black eye and an obnoxiously large bandage that blocked my vision. The big bandage took a week to get reduced to a large bandaid, and now I'm down to a small circular one that I almost forget is there ... until I go out in public.
This whole ordeal has given me a new perspective, and not just on the issue of why we need to use sunscreen. I already knew that and have chosen to ignore it for most of my life. The bandage is a consequence of my bad choices and a reminder that I have made a lot of them. But the reason I'm writing this is because the bandage has also become a trigger for making me realize how badly most of us react to those who are different from us. It's a realization that may even be uglier than squamous cell skin cancer.
It's only a bandaid people!
Little kids stare at me like I have a third eye. Adults in the airport pretend not to look, but then I catch them stealing glances. It's as if I had a giant growth sticking out of my forehead and it has made me think, "What if I did?"
What if, like the young man my wife and I saw in Times Square this week, instead of a two-week stint with a bandaid, I had a lifelong attachment to a giant growth that deformed my face and forehead? What if I had Downs Syndrome? What if I had a speech impediment? In other words, what if I could never take the bandaid off? Do we even realize how much we can affect the personality of someone simply by staring at them because they are different?
I doubt it.
Though this is a good reminder about how we treat people who are different from us, it is obviously not some profound insight I got from having a bandaid stuck to my face. The real reason I'm writing this came last Sunday when, in the midst of my two-week bandaid ordeal, our minister addressed the subject of homosexuality and same-sex marriage in his sermon. I agreed with everything he said: That homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible; that same-sex "marriage" is an oxymoron; that we as a society should reject it; and that our reactions to the homosexual agenda are largely unproductive and makes things worse. All that said, it made me think, "What if your bandaid is homosexuality?"
I once flew with a flight attendant who commented that you could tell he
was a homosexual "from outer space" ... and he was right. How do we -- how do I -- treat people like that? Is my first reaction to stare; to mock ... or to love?
Now, I know there are those who will argue with me about comparing the permanence and innateness of homosexuality with a bandaid that I can take off at will. I think there are good reasons to reject the idea that homosexuality is not a choice. I know there are good reasons to argue that homosexuality defies natural law and is therefore objectively immoral. I reject the very idea of same-sex "marriage." I am not arguing those points here. I could be wrong about them but if I am my point becomes even more relevant.
Let's assume I am right. Let's assume that, like my squamous cell skin cancer, the bandaid we stare at is there because homosexuality is a cancer that comes as a consequence of immoral behavior. So what? My being right about homosexuality has nothing to do with my treating other people -- most especially homosexuals -- with love and kindness, even in my own private conversations about it.
I have been guilty of failing at that responsibility -- that's what my bandaid really taught me.
We need to love homosexuals more than they love homosexuality, whether it's a bandaid they can take off or not.
Recently, I've been challenged by a new acquaintance to discuss some of the details and implications of Darwinian Evolution. This is a friendly discussion and I commend my skeptical, truth-seeking friend for his willingness to tackle these issues in a serious, respectful manner. We also agreed to read a couple of books that supported our respective points of view. I recommended Jay Richards', God and Evolution and Fazale Rana's, Origins of Life. To his credit, he ordered both books the next day. In turn, I agreed to read a book he thinks is compelling in support of evolution, Jerry Coyne's, Why Evolution Is True.
Coyne is a veryconvincing writer and makes a compelling case for his view. Ultimately, I don't find it persuasive but that's why we're having the discussion! In an attempt to engage Coyne's arguments, I am linking to a series of blog posts by Jonathan McLatchie, a fellow CrossExamined instructor and frequent contributor not only to the CrossExamined Blog, but to the Discovery Institute's Evolution News and Views.
Jonathan has a undergraduate degree in Forensic Biology and a Master's Degree in Evolutionary Biology from the University of Glasgow, Scotland. He is currently serving as an intern with the Discovery Institute in Seattle. In other words, Jonathan is the kind of guy who can speak intelligently to this subject and I am happy to let him. As the discussion progresses, I will try to offer my own thoughts at a more practical, Marine-friendly level if I can.
Here are some quick takes on each post in the series with specific links to each one.
_________________
The gaps in Coyne's claim about Universal Common Descent (UCD) ... the
idea that all life has descended from a single, single-celled, simple,
common ancestor:
Atheists never tire of denouncing theism as a lazy appeal to wishful
thinking that gets inserted anytime there are gaps in our scientific
knowledge. On their view, this is when theists shout, "Goddidit!" (You
can see examples of this very thing in my discussion with tildeb a
few posts back). But now, Jerry Coyne turns that notion on its head by
presuming to know how God would do things if He really designed life.
Coyne's lame claim is that "suboptimal" design proves that God could not
have been involved. Apparently, Jerry Coyne not only knows what the
most optimal design for each biological system should be, but also that
this is exactly the kind of thing we should find if Darwinism is true.
In effect, Coyne misses the irony involved when he shouts,
"Evolutiondidit!":
This post shows the problems with Coyne's claim that "biogeography" -- the view that geographical evidence from continental drift and migration supports evolution -- offers convincing support for the "truth" of evolution:
As a follow-up to my post on the Penn State travesty and the "Chain of Perverts" that led from Alfred Kinsey to Hugh Hefner to Graham Spanier to Jerry Sandusky, it does my heart good to read that Spanier, the former President of Penn State, has been charged with perjury, obstruction, endangering the welfare of children, failure to properly report suspected abuse and conspiracy. [His assistants] Curley and Schultz face new charges of endangering the welfare of children, obstruction and conspiracy.
Spanier has said he had no memory of email traffic concerning the 1998 complaint made by a mother after Sandusky showered with her son, and only slight recollections about the 2001 complaint by a team assistant who said he stumbled onto Sandusky sexually abusing a boy inside a campus shower ...
The grand jury report indicates Curley, Schultz and Spanier told the university's lawyer they had no documents that addressed Sandusky having inappropriate contact with boys.
But Schultz did retain a Sandusky file in his office, the jury concluded, and he told his administrative assistant Joan Coble never to look at it.
"She said it was a very unusual request and was made in a `tone of voice' she had never heard him use before," according to the jury report.
Another Schultz assistant took the file from his office at the time of Schultz's arrest, made a copy and gave the file to him, the grand jury said. Kelly said it was eventually obtained by the grand jury ...
Freeh's investigators uncovered emails in which the administrators discussed the 1998 complaint, including a May 5 email from Curley to Schultz and Spanier, with "Joe Paterno" in the subject line. It read: "I have touched bases with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks."
Spanier told Freeh's team that he believed in 2001 that the encounter witnessed by graduate assistant Mike McQueary amounted to "horseplay," although an email sent by him to Curley at that time reflected a much more somber tone.
In that email, Spanier was reacting to a proposal by Curley in which they would not report Sandusky to authorities but instead tell him he needed help and that he could no longer bring children into Penn State facilities.
"The only downside for us is if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it," Spanier wrote in 2001. "The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed."
Humane and reasonable indeed.
This sad and sordid story just keeps getting worse. But one thing that has not changed is the chain of perverts and the far-reaching and disgusting fallout from the work of the demented and dangerous Alfred Kinsey. When you hear about SIECUS in your public school, remember his name and the trail of destruction that leads from him, through the likes of Graham Spanier and Jerry Sandusky, right to your front door.
Maybe it is jaded and cynical to say it, and maybe it is not even fair, but it seems to be safe to assume that "all politicians are liars" is as good a starting point as any to work from when assessing the candidates for whom we must choose to vote. I hate to say that because I'm sure there are non-lying politicians out there. But if there are, they are definitely in the minority -- and they certainly don't include our current choices for President of the United States. Still, the fact is that we have an obligation to vote whether we like our choices or not. So, given that dual reality, I'd like to make the case -- based on my wish to advance a rational, God-honoring view of the world -- for which liar would do the most to move this country in the right direction morally.
It may seem oxymoronic (or maybe just moronic) to attempt to make a moral argument for how to decide between liars, but I'm not trying to be funny, or witty, or sarcastic. I'm dead serious ... and I think the consequences of this choice are deadly serious too, especially when it comes to the moral repercussions of two of the most consequential moral issues of our time: abortion and same-sex "marriage."
Mitt Romney
Mr. Romney's stance on abortion seems to have changed considerably (Click HERE for a timeline series of videos showing the positions he has held since 1994):
1994 -- In a debate during his race against Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, Romney said, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country." Referring to the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal in every state, Romney added, "I believe that since Roe-v-Wade has been the law for 20 years, it should be sustained and supported. And I sustain and support that law and support the right of a woman to make that choice.
2002 -- In a debate during his campaign for governor of Massachusetts, Romney said, "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."
2005 -- Romney endorses the standard postmodern "my personal view aside ... we should maintain the status quo" claim to be pro-life but not mess with abortion laws.
2007 -- Romney would be thrilled to sign a bill overturning Roe-v-Wade.
2012 -- Romney claims that he is "firmly pro-life" and thinks the abortion issue should be returned to the states.
While his opponents and the media characterize this timeline as a "flip flop," and while there is no doubt that he has changed his public position on abortion, it seems to me that Mr. Romney has "evolved" more than flipped. And consider this: Mr. Romney is a devout Mormon. Mormons in general are unwaveringly pro-family and pro-life. For that reason, I find it extremely doubtful that Mr. Romney was ever really in favor of abortion. He just didn't want to admit it because he was trying to get elected in an extremely liberal state (Massachusetts).
While I find that to be cowardly, dishonest, sad, and opportunistic, I believe the fact is that he lied about being pro-choice. But even if he didn't, his "evolution" has been toward the correct moral position on the issue.
Barack Obama
Mr. Obama's history with the abortion issue shows a far different story. You can get a detailed compilation of it here: Obama's Record on Abortion ... but suffice it to say it is abysmal:
1997 - 2004 -- While a member of the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama opposed the proposed “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” (BAIPA) for three straight legislative sessions and twice spoke against the bill on the Senate floor. He voted against the bill twice in committee and once on the Senate floor. Both laws were intended to provide protection for babies who survived abortions equal to protection received by babies who are spontaneously born prematurely.
2004 - 2009 -- Obama compiled a 0% voting record on pro-life issues scored by the National Right to Life Committee and a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
2007 -- Obama sharply criticized the Supreme Court for its 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. He said, "I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling...I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."
2008 -- At a campaign stop while running for president, Obama said: "I’ve got two daughters. Nine years old and six years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby."
2009 -- Obama not only invoked an Executive Order removing all barriers from embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), he simultaneously revoked President Bush’s Executive Order which funded alternate stem cell research that does not destroy human embryos. You can read the sad history of this story here: Stem Cell Obfuscation
2010 -- Obama courted "pro-life" Democrats during the congressional fight against ObamaCare by promising to invoke an Executive Order that would prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion. This effort was successful in obtaining a key vote from Michigan congressman Bart Stupak that allowed the bill to pass. Since then we have found not only that the ObamaCare Law includes surreptitious language that would allow taxpayer funding of abortion, but we have seen an outright assault on religious liberty by the Obama administration that would force religious institutions and their insurance programs to fund services contrary to their religious convictions.
As Greg Koukl has put it, this president doesn't just think there is a right to abortion, he believes there is an inalienable right to a corpse. Barack Obama may not accept that description of his view on abortion, but his record tells otherwise. The president is among the most radical abortion rights politicians we have ever seen ... and he is proud of it.
Following the last post, I want to finish with the most important issue that I believe was exposed with Bill Nye's ridiculous video by devoting a separate post to my interlocutor's (tildeb) final comment, the gist of which is as follows:
I suspect we would agree on almost everything - like family and friends and jobs and the cost of living and health concerns and so on... right up until you tried to have your religious beliefs privileged or their intentions imposed on others or if I argued to keep true to the secular ideals of personal autonomy! … All religious claims for historical creationism are equivalently based solely on belief. At best - like abiogenesis - we should agree that neither of us knows and hold that opinion until such a time that reality offers us compelling evidence to adduce a change. Belief of the religious kind does not produce knowledge and certainly doesn't fill in gaps where we currently have none. Yet far too often, this is exactly where religious belief stakes out its ground. As if this weren't bad enough, too often the conclusions deduced from these beliefs are then imposed on the rest of us by influencing public institutions, public practices, public policies, public law, public education, and so on. Nowhere is this more problematic than over issues claimed by the religious to be about morality... but that's for another day.
I don't want to cut and paste the whole thing but I believe this gives proper context to tildeb's point. What I want to concentrate on is the idea that he brings in the emphasized phrases of his quote -- because this is where the real crux of the issue resides. Like Bill Nye (on the video in the original post), tildeb does not want to allow people who think like me to "have their beliefs privileged or their intentions imposed on others ... by influencing public institutions, public practices, public policies, public law, [or] public education."
The mind-numbing arrogance and irony contained in this way of thinking is breathtaking. Notice that tildeb will not only mock the beliefs of others, he will fight to keep them from ever having them "imposed" on those with whom he agrees. How does he believe this should be handled?
By imposing his beliefs on those who disagree with him.
Notice that those who take Intelligent Design seriously and understand what it claims (as well as what it does not claim), are perfectly content to "teach the controversy." This means that they want to teach everything about Darwinism -- including its presuppositions, missing evidence, process flaws, and catastrophic inability to explain the origin of anything, let alone life itself. They have no desire to ban the teaching of Darwinism or to avoid it in any way. In fact, they have argued passionately for the opposite.
It is not "Creationists" who are imposing their beliefs on anyone. It is the materialist priesthood of Darwinist believers who are imposing their metaphysical worldview on others and enforcing it in every public institution that tildeb mentioned. You can read my thoughts on that subject here: "Defrocking The Priests of Scientism".
The final irony in tildeb's way of thinking is that he claims that this issue is "nowhere more problematic than over issues claimed by the religious to be about morality."
Apparently those who think this way believe that it would be immoral for religious believers to impose their views on them. This charge is brought to us by subscribers to a worldview in which "morality" has no basis ... and pontificated on by those who are perfectly happy to impose their religious views on us.
Recently, I posted a rebuttal to a recent video by Bill Nye, "The Science Guy" that generated more hits on my blog than any other single post I've ever put up. What followed (at least with one respectful commenter, tildeb) was an ongoing conversation about the differing views that Christian and secular folks have with regard to the role and implications of science and what we can infer from it about the real world. I have to say that though "tildeb" (I don't know his name but this is a link to his blog) and I see the world through completelydifferent lenses, the conversation that was generated was pretty informative. I don't want to rehash it here (you can go to the comments section of the Bill Nye post if you're interested), but I did think the following exchange (which occurred near the end of the conversation) is telling about how two people can look at the exact same data and draw completely different conclusions. I'll let readers draw their own conclusions. Here's the beginning of tildeb's argument ...
There really are compelling reasons why nearly 97% of university tenured biologists reject all forms of creationism; the assumption of supernatural causation is not borne out by information we adduce from this natural universe. In fact, the overwhelming mutually supporting evidence from independent lines of research all point in one direction: common ancestry by natural selection.
The important aspect here is often ignored by those who cling to creationist beliefs: the evidence did not have to be this way, yet it is! Genetics could have pointed to a single founding couple. Yet it does not. Geology could have pointed to a single creation event. Yet it does not. Topography could have pointed to a global flood. Yet it does not. Radioactive dating could have shown a uniform age of sedimentation. Yet it does not. Physiology could have shown distinct and separate ancestry. Yet it does not. Astronomy could have shown our solar uniqueness. Yet it does not. Physics could have shown exemptions were possible from natural laws. Yet it does not. Chemistry could have shown us cellular rejuvenation through intercessory prayer. Yet it does not. Biodiversity could have shown us stable population dispersal. Yet it does not. Over and over again, opportunities to adduce creation events are plentiful. What's strikingly absent from all this evidence is any indication for a creationist event.
There really are compelling reasons why nearly 97% of university tenured biologists reject all forms of creationism...
Correct. It’s called groupthink. There really were compelling reasons why nearly 100% of university tenured scientists rejected all forms of heliocentrism before Copernicus/Galileo proved their geocentric view was false. There really were compelling reasons why Einstein (and many others) rejected the notion of an expanding universe because they "knew" the universe was static and eternal.
Your appeal to authority does nothing to change the fact that the sudden appearance and expansion of the universe implies an external cause.
...the assumption of supernatural causation is not borne out by information we adduce from this natural universe. In fact, the overwhelming mutually supporting evidence from independent lines of research all point in one direction: common ancestry by natural selection.
And while you continue to pretend the origin of life is irrelevant to the worldview you are defending, I will continue to insist that you have to explain it too. Even if universal common ancestry is true, it does nothing to explain the origin of complex, specified information in DNA. Nothing.
Genetics could have pointed to a single founding couple. Yet it does not.
Well, actually it might seem far-fetched to think we could find “proof” of the first couple, but you also might be interested to know that research indicates that modern humans can be traced back to a single location while mitochondrial DNA analysis points to a single woman as its source. I guess the fact that the science community nicknamed her “mitochondrial Eve” is just coincidence. {Sources: Linda Vigilant et al, “African Populations and the Evolution of Human Mitochondrial DNA,” Science 253 (1991); M. Hasegawa and S. Horai, “Time of the Deepest Root for Polymorphism in Human Mitochondrial DNAs,” Journal of Molecular Evolution …There are more but I’m running out of space.}
Geology could have pointed to a single creation event. Yet it does not.
Well, actually that is kind of silly. Scientists who are looking at the “single creation event” are astronomers and cosmologists, not geologists. While geology might show traces of evidence for how the Earth formed and for what has happened to it since, it won’t really tell us much about the “single creation event.” For that, see Einstein, Hubble etc. Or, are you suggesting (like many young earth creationists) that the Earth was created before the Sun and the galaxy in which we reside? :-)
Topography could have pointed to a global flood. Yet it does not.
I agree. That’s why I don’t accept the idea of a global flood (defined as one that covered the entire earth). Go here for my explanation: The Extent of Noah’s Flood
Radioactive dating could have shown a uniform age of sedimentation. Yet it does not.
Once again, I agree! See how similar we are?! But that does nothing to undermine the case for a Creator. It only goes to undermine the case for young earth creationism which, I think you would agree, is nonsense.
Physiology could have shown distinct and separate ancestry. Yet it does not.
Well, actually that is not true either. Recent studies of human DNA distribution (2002) compared 377 DNA regions for 1,056 individuals from 52 different population groups and found 93-95% of all genetic variation occurs within all populations and only 3-5% of genetic variability occurs between populations. In other words the human genetic unity is very unusual. {Source: Noah A. Rosenberg et al., “Genetic Structure of Human Populations,” Science 298 (2002)
Astronomy could have shown our solar uniqueness. Yet it does not.
Apparently you unfamiliar with (non-Christians) Ward and Brownlee’s, Rare Earth. No time to go into it here but you can read the book which makes exactly the opposite point of your assertion here. Though you probably reject it without consideration, there is also Richards and Gonzalez's, The Privileged Planet, which deals with similar information and also shows how that information is perfectly consistent with the Christian view of reality. Physics could have shown exemptions were possible from natural laws. Yet it does not. Chemistry could have shown us cellular rejuvenation through intercessory prayer. Yet it does not.
So, like many materialists, you seem to believe that science can disprove miracles. The glaring problem in that assumption is that it makes a colossal and inappropriate category error. In what alternate universe do you think science (the study of the material world) could prove or disprove miracles (which are, by definition, not material)?
Over and over again, your attempt to deny reality comes back to bite you. Over and over again you fail to see the myopic view you (along with Bill Nye, “The Science Guy”) are attempting to defend has glaring holes in it that you refuse to acknowledge. Hopefully, you have something to think about now ... if you're honest with yourself that is ...
------------------------
As you can see, there are perfectly valid, reasonable and rational explanations for each of the phenomenon tildeb claims are non-existent. He doesn't have to accept them, but that does nothing to undermine their validity. Tildeb (and others like him) can continue to ignore these explanations and thereby remain intellectually dishonest in their claims that they don't exist.
I prefer to engage the best arguments of my opponents, not ignore them and I will let the reader decide if their blindness is of the willful or ignorant persuasion.
I have nothing personal against Bill Nye, "The Science Guy". I remember watching parts of his program when our kids were younger and I found them enjoyable and informative. However, if you have any interest whatsoever in knowing the truth about the world and/or speaking coherently, consistently, and intelligently about seeking the truth about that world, please watch this 2:32 minute video and think about what he is saying. It really is beyond me how someone who is sold as such a scientific sage and articulator of the the truth could deliver such a bumbling, nonsensical connection of incoherent platitudes ... and then finish them off by admonishing the morons (defined as a parent who does not agree with Bill Nye, "The Science Guy") to shut up and leave the education of their children to the real scientists -- like him.
There are a few facts about Mr. Nye that I find directly applicable to the list of assertions (definitely not an argument) he brings us. For starters, one would think that someone who is touted in the media as a "science guy" -- especially a guy who would challenge your parenting skills if you don't buy into the widely accepted "fact" of evolution -- would, at a minimum be -- Oh, I don't know -- an actual scientist. Given the topic of this video in fact, we might assume that our "science guy" would have some kind of background or advanced degree in the life/biological sciences.
Well, Bill Nye, "the science guy," actually has nothing of the kind. Mr. Nye's education consists of a Bachelor of Science ... in Mechanical Engineering. His expertise consists of: developing a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor for Boeing; being a student of Carl Sagan (a shocking revelation in light of the content of this video); receiving two Honorary Doctorate Degrees because he gave a couple of commencement addresses (long after his popularity on being "the science guy" had been established); and (probably the most relevant fact in relation to this discussion) a career that began as a stand-up comedian in Seattle.
I couldn't make this up.
With this as his background, "the science guy" wants to lecture the rest of us about how ridiculous we are to not believe in evolution but he makes absolutely no distinction about what he means by "evolution." Does he mean that we ridiculous people deny that species change and adapt to the environment? If so, he is just plain wrong. However, since it is the case that most who defend "evolution" are referring to a specific theory that all life is the result of a purposeless, materialistic process that began by a random accident and can account for all variations of life from that first self-replicating, single-celled organism (I refer to this as Big 'E' Evolution), I will assume that is what he means.
As we examine his case, it is important to recognize a couple of things. First, just because Mr. Nye's credentials as a "science guy" are lacking, that doesn't mean we should dismiss him out of hand. We should give him the benefit of the doubt until he gives us reason not to. Second, we need to recognize the difference between an assertion and an argument. Anyone can make assertions but no one should be compelled to accept them unless they are supported by evidence, logic and good reasoning. Mr. Nye gives none of these. He simply offers a rambling set of assertions that completely collapse when you take the time to think about what they are. So, in the interest of deciding who is actually being ridiculous, let me break down the case Mr. Nye makes.
"Denial of evolution is unique to the United States ... we are the world's most advanced technological society ... people move to the United States because of our general understanding of science."
Beside the fact that this a baseless and demonstrably false assertion (I know of plenty of folks who live all over the world who do not accept Evolution because they have not seen any credible evidence to support it), let's just say Mr. Nye is correct; the only people who don't believe in Evolution are Americans. What does this prove? Does the geographical location of those persons who believe in an idea determine the truth content of the idea itself? To ask the question is to answer it. As a side note, does Mr. Nye really believe that the reason people immigrate to the United States is because of our general understanding of science? The utter inanity of these assertions defies all logic.
"When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in Evolution it holds everybody back."
How, exactly, did Mr. Nye come to this conclusion? My undergraduate education is in aerospace engineering. I learned how to design airplanes and then how to fly them. I don't accept Evolution. So I would like Mr. Nye to explain to me exactly how I am "holding everybody back." I don't think he can. And let's turn this one around. Suppose I claimed that those who do accept Evolution are holding everybody back. Would Mr. Nye accept this as a valid argument against Evolution? It would be ridiculous if he did.
"Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science ... [Not believing in it] is analogous to doing geology and not believing in tectonic plates ... you're just not gonna get the right answer. Your whole world is just gonna be a mystery instead of an exciting place."
Before he said this, Mr. Nye had only demonstrated a lack of logic and reasoning. But here he completely invalidates his claim to be a "science guy." Whatever one thinks of the concept of Evolution, it can only be understood as a process that explains the emergence and diversity of life on the Earth. It is a noble attempt to explain the nuts and bolts of just how chemical elements that existed on the early Earth combined and interacted with one another to produce complex biological systems that live and grow and reproduce. It is the process that is at the heart of Evolution, not the parts that are used by the process. Yet Mr. Nye believes that tectonic plates -- which are nothing but giant hunks of rock that get pushed around by geological processes -- are analogous to the process of Evolution. He fails to understand the very basic concept that he is comparing completely non-analogous categories of things. If he can't distinguish such a fundamental concept as this I'm not sure why anyone thinks we should take him seriously as a "science guy."
"Once in a while I get people who don't really -- who claim -- they don't believe in evolution. My response is, 'Why not?' Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution."
Notice that Mr. Nye believes that no one could really disbelieve in Evolution; they only "claim" to do so. He also fails to offer the responses he receives to his "Why not?" question. Who is he asking? Why does he dismiss them? We can't really know how to evaluate their answers unless we know what evidence they are citing and the actual reasons they are giving. The fact that Mr. Nye doesn't accept their responses is hardly a reason for us to reject them, especially having established that his reasoning is demonstrably lacking in support of Evolution. I also fail to see any connection between my denial of Evolution and the complicatedness of the world I am living in as a result. This assertion comes completely out of left field as an irrelevant non sequitur. "Here are these ancient dinosaur bones ... radioactivity ... distant stars ... the idea of deep time ... billions of years ... if you try to ignore that your worldview just becomes crazy"
Just like most "young earth creationists," Mr. Nye is equating non-acceptance of Evolution with belief in a young universe (or, conversely, acceptance of an old universe as an equivalent acceptance of Evolution). Once again he is confusing categories. How in the world does Mr. Nye equate non-acceptance of Evolution with a belief in a young universe? These two topics are completely separate. One is about biology and the other is about cosmology. All one would have to do to show that this assertion by Mr. Nye is false is declare themselves to be an "old universe, non-Evolutionist." How would he respond to that? By failing to recognize this difference, he not only demonstrates his lack of a basic understanding of science, but also shows the failure of the argument most young Earth creationists use against those of us who believe the universe is old. I wonder how Mr. Nye would react when someone pointed out to him that his thinking is exactly equivalent to the young Earth creationists he so abhors.
"I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that is completely inconsistent with the universe, that's fine ... but don't make your kids do it ... because we need them ... we need engineers who can build things and solve problems ..."
Now Mr. Nye has stepped out of a scientific critique (if you could consider to him to have ever been inside one) and into the arrogance of supposing he has the right to tell anyone what they should be allowed to teach their children. This is the impulse of a statist mindset that thinks it can determine what people should be allowed to think. Those of us who honor scientific objectivity, free thought, and academic tolerance need to recognize this kind of talk when we hear it. People who think like this are the most intolerant kinds of people and they are destroying the concept of free thought in the academy. It is intellectually dishonest and it can become dangerous for those who don't think the "right way."
I would also like to point out that Mr. Nye (once again) demonstrates his failure to understand basic logic when he ties belief in Evolution to our ability to produce "engineers who can build things and solve problems." It seems fairly obvious that one can be a perfectly competent airplane or bridge designer/builder not only without holding an opinion about Evolution, but with being completely ignorant about the very concept of Evolution. Mr. Nye proved that himself when he designed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor for Boeing.
Finally, Mr, Nye insists that we must overcome those who disbelieve in Evolution because "... we need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers." By examining the case he makes in this video, I think it should be fairly obvious that, if scientific literacy became a prerequisite for voting and paying taxes, "the science guy" would have to stay home on election day.
If you're as old as me, you may remember the annoyingly catchy commercials for Chiffon Margarine that assured us that "If you think it's butter, but it's not ... it's Chiffon!" The gist of the ad was that the synthetic Chiffon margarine was even better than nature's butter. In fact, Chiffon was so good that the commercials also carried a tongue-in-cheek warning: "It's not nice to fool mother nature!" Cute. Catchy. Comical. Well, if fooling with "mother nature" isn't "nice" when you're talking about margarine, what kind of adjective should we use to describe our growing propensity to fool with human nature? A friend of mine pointed out that she recently set up a new Gmail account. In doing so she was surprised to find that one of the inputs that is required (and that comes with the warning that you "may not leave this blank") is Gender. The input field comes with the following choices: "Male," "Female," and "Other." Other? Though this is trumpeted as a way to show respect and tolerance to our "transgendered community," the truth is that this is really one of the most disrespectful and potentially harmful things that any of us could do to anyone. It is not loving to deny the reality of human nature. It is not loving to enable destructive behavior. It is hateful. It invites further destruction. It is no different than building a city below sea level, or excavating a basement under your beach house, or moving your family onto the rim of an active volcano, or building your house on a geological fault line. Speaking of fault lines, our culture is teetering on one right now, and the way we respond may have ramifications far beyond anything we can imagine. We, as a culture, are not just fooling with Mother Nature, we are fooling with the most basic of foundations of our existence. We are fooling with what it means to be human.
Tommy Lobel
Since Google brought up transgendered-ness here, consider the case of a pre-teen guinea pig who is being abused in the most fundamental way by the "tolerance" and "respect" of a warped and deluded view of human nature. Eleven year-old Thomas Lobel is undergoing hormone therapy to block the release of testosterone in his pre-pubescent body so as to "allow him more time to consider living life as a female." Tommy, they say, seems confused about his gender identity and needs time to work it out. But, considering that Tommy -- whose parents say he wants to be Tammy -- was born with male reproductive organs, it seems difficult to understand why that might be.
Tammy Lobel
Unless one considers that Tommy's parents, Moreno and Lobel are, in a completely unrelated coincidence, two lesbian women who support the wishes they claim Tommy has been exhibiting since age 3. If there is a more dastardly form of child abuse than this, I certainly cannot think of what it might be. Those with Christian convictions are quick to recognize the problem here: Human beings are made in the image of God; male and female He created them. And He did so for a reason. Human beings are the pinnacle of God's creative work because it was through a divinely conceived plan that free will human beings would bring forth His goal to conquer evil once and for all. That's the way I see it -- but you don't need to share my Christian convictions to recognize the design and value that is intrinsic to being human. We are each issued a set of parts that are designed to be used for a certain purpose. We are also endowed with moral intuitions that, even if confused by our environment or upbringing, can be verified by a quick inspection of said parts. Denying these simple facts is simply a delusion -- a delusion that is based in the wrongheaded notion that our humanity is the flexible and subjective result of decisions we are free to make for ourselves. Our culture abuses this idea all the time. It is the same denial of reality we see:
In the defense of all methods of abortion that, by their very nature, can only be found acceptable through denying the objective humanity of the unborn
In the "personhood" defense of abortion choice that claims that we are not fully human until we achieve some status, level of development, location, or other extrinsic feature that they feel free to define for ourselves
In the support for embryonic stem cell research that uses "therapeutic" cloning techniques to create embryos and then destroy them for research
In various end-of-life scenarios that justify euthanasia for an assortment of reasons that rely on some subjective standard to deny the continued humanness of the sick or dying
In the "transgendered" movement (of which Thomas Lobel is a victim) which insists that gender is a social construction that we are free to change for ourselves
In the gay agenda -- most notably the same-sex marriage movement -- which tries to redefine "marriage" in a corrupted image of homosexuality
Each of these aberrations denies the most basic and important thing about us all -- the uniqueness and foundational reality of our humanness. Our human nature is not up for redefinition. It is the reason for our existence and what sets us apart from the rest of nature. It is what gives us purpose and it is what allows us to recognize that we have a purpose. It is the most basic truth about us and, for that reason, any attempt to alter or redirect it is not only an exercise in futility, it is an invitation to catastrophe. The repercussions of that ongoing catastrophe can be seen everywhere we look.
We need to think of human nature in the same way we understand any other law of nature. Those who think they are "fooling" mother nature in these various ways need to imagine the ludicrousness of treating gravity in the same way. Would they take a stroll off the railing of the Empire State Building's observation deck by claiming they hadn't yet decided if they accepted the mandates of gravity? Good luck with that.
Denying the reality of our humanity is just as ridiculous. To believe otherwise is to be deluded. We are not "fooling" mother nature. We are only fooling ourselves.
In it, Reisman chronicles Kinsey's recognition as the America's expert on "sex education" whose studies have influenced our cultural institutions since 1948 when his book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, along with his 1953 follow-up, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female hit the higher education marketplace. In these books Kinsey pronounced untold "facts" about human sexuality that many in the culture and education have used as the standard by which the topic is addressed in academia to this day.
Here's the problem. Kinsey's studies were conducted on test cases made up of:
"... draft dodgers, violent felons, homosexuals and other aberrants ... By 1946 Kinsey added '1400 convicted sex offenders in penal institutions,' 'two hundred sexual psychopath patients' and well over 600 sexually abused boys. In sum, 86% of deviant 'subjects' [were used to define] the Libido of The Greatest Generation ... [As for women], Kinsey selected -- and paid -- prostitutes to represent American womanhood. He loosely defined a 'wife' as someone who had lived 'at least a year' with a man."*
And what about Kinsey himself? In perversions that are unrepeatable here, Kinsey began "sexual experimentation" at age 7 in the basement of his Hoboken, New Jersey home. I'll spare the details but suffice it to say that by the time he conducted the studies that became his books, Kinsey had assembled a staff where "everyone was a bisexual, homosexual, pedophile, pederast, or just wholly amoral ... [and whose studies involved] 214 children ranging in age from 1 to 14 years."**
That's not a typo. Age ONE to FOURTEEN. And, yes, that means that Kinsey's "research" involved a staff who arranged and observed "sex play" in children age 4 to 15. As Reisman puts it:
"Kinsey fed America a pack of lies, starting with his claim that sexual behavior widely accepted as wrong was, in fact, commonplace. From there, he pushed the lie that such behavior was normal, and finally, he advanced the lie that it was good, healthy, and to be encouraged. Thus, by degrees, Kinsey and his minions turned America's moral compass upside down ..."***
On Kinsey's cue, Hugh Hefner began to mainstream pornography. Segelstein:
"Hugh Hefner’s work was also kindled by Kinsey’s work, according to biographer Russell Miller. The first Playboy magazine was published in 1953, five years after Kinsey unleashed Human Male on America. InPlayboy’s inaugural issue, Hefner paid tribute to Kinsey, writing that, ‘we are filling a publishing need only slightly less important that the one just taken care of by the Kinsey Report.’ … funding from Hugh Hefner, Wardell Pomeroy and other Kinsey devotees [that] founded SIECUS."
It was Hugh Hefner and other Kinsey disciples who helped fund and found the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). If that acronym sounds familiar it is because SIECUS is the foremost provider of sex education in American public schools.
So what am I getting at?
Spanier and Sandusky
In 1972, a man named Graham Spanier endorsed Kinsey's research to the Midwest Sociological Society and, in 1976, under a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Development, he also validated Kinsey's data on "childhood sex play" for similar "scholars." In 2002, Spanier also approved Pat Califia, a "transgendered advocate of sado-masochism and pedophilia" as the keynote speaker for a women's health conference at his place of employment. The year before he allowed the group, Womyn's Concerns to hold a "Sex Faire" at the same location which featured activities like "orgasm bingo" and "the tent of consent." When asked if the "fair" was morally wrong, Spanier replied, "It depends on what your definition of immoral is."****
That location was a college campus. Spanier was the President of Penn State University -- the leader of the gang of cowards who knew about, covered for, and lied about the activities the child rapist, Jerry Sandusky.
There has been a lot written about the disgusting story of the Penn State football program. One of my favorites comes from Rick Reilly's self-confessed failure to not see the hagiography that was going on at PSU for so many years that allowed such a thing to occur. Many have commented on the deceit and perversion, but I haven't seen any attempt to expose the chain of perverts that leads from Kinsey to Spanier to Sandusky. Nor have I seen anyone try to explain why someone like Joe Paterno, who had no apparent fondness for the despicable actions of his defensive coach, would be willing to stay quiet about it. I believe this goes beyond his being embarrassed for, and trying to protect, the school or his football program. At its core, this is one of the many fruits of moral relativism -- the unwillingness to acknowledge that something is objectively wrong in and of itself.
In 1993, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan put forward the thesis that:
"...over the past generation, the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can 'afford to recognize' and that, accordingly, we have been redefining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the 'normal' level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard. This redefining has evoked fierce resistance from defenders of 'old' standards, and accounts for much of the present 'cultural war' ...
The American Scholar, (Winter 1993)
Our culture has surely been "defining deviancy down" for quite some time. We are willing to "exempt conduct previously stigmatized" because it has become more unacceptable to be thought an arrogant or oppressive defender of objective moral truth, than it has to become complicit in the rape of little boys.
