I asked Lanore why she thinks the Doctors decided that Andrea should be taken off life support. She said "You know Anrdea has many friends and is part of about a dozen online crochet groups. She loves crafts. But to someone who downhill skis I suppose that doesn't look too exciting. I think the Doctors think her life sucks."

It all comes down to that in life issues, doesn't it? One person decides another person's life "sucks." And that is that. Is this what we are coming to? Stand up for the value of life. Call St. Luke and let them know how you feel.

The number is 832-355-1000

Labels: David C. Price

If this were not a serious proposal it would be quite funny. Sadly, though, we are seeing just one more example of what happens when man dies. In reality, this is not the elevation of simians to the level of humans. Rather, it is the exact opposite -- man is being pulled down to the level of the gorilla, declaring that there is nothing any more special in humanity than that of an orangutan. It is, however, a reasonable next step in the secularization of a country and the adoption of Darwinian Evolution as a standard.

One can only assume that once such a piece of legislation is passed, it would mean the immediate release of all simians into free society. Surely they can't keep "human beings" locked up like mere animals without cause. I don't know about you, but if some ape is going to be walking down the streets of Spain, I'm vacationing here in the States where people only act like apes.

I can't honestly see this absurd piece of legislation passing (I hope!), but if, by chance, it does, I really hope they have cameras present when the Socialist sponsors of the bill go into the gorilla den to shake this new "human's" hand, welcoming him into the species. By the way, I heard many in the Socialist Party believe that the recent movie, Curious George, is really a documentary of the life of their next presidential candidate. That's just hear-say, though.

Labels: David C. Price

Though it is true that man is in despair, he need not remain there. There is an answer. One may respond, “I am not in despair. I have a family that I love, a job I enjoy and a life that is good.” For many, that is the case, they do “have it good.” However, many of these, when asked questions regarding the basis for such things as love, enjoyment and goodness, they cannot provide a basis for these because they also hold that life is a series of random chance, matter and complexity. There is no absolute right or wrong, good or bad. They have bought into the idea of a relativized truth. They are the same people who will say that it is important to determine what “truth is for you.”

If truth is simply what you make it out to be, you are, quite simply, in despair. There is no “goodness” except what has been determined “good” by society. There is no basis for love because there is no basis for personality. If life is merely randomness, chance, and matter, then from where does personality develop? The only logical conclusion is that it is an illusion, at best. The impersonal cannot develop the personal.

Sometimes it takes a dose of real world pain to shake us into the realization that without an infinite personality (it must be infinite or else there is still no basis for finite man to have personality), there is only despair even when we have a sense that all is well with the universe. On Sunday, for example, my pastor showed the picture to the left to our congregation. It is the heart-breaking photograph of a little, starving Sudanese girl doing all she can to make it to a nearby feeding station. On the way, she collapses from exhaustion as a vulture perches itself on a nearby rock, waiting for the opportunity for a meal. How could one see such a picture and not be moved deeply with a sense of injustice and brokenness that another human being could go through something such as this? Yet, where do those feelings of compassion and agony come from? Some would have us believe they are just a result of years of conditioning. I showed it to my five year old and he was near tears as he saw this little girl. He wanted to do something to help her. He hurt for her. This was not conditioning but rather something deep inside him that cried out, “This is wrong!” Not just something that was wrong for some, but universally wrong. The despair of man comes when he realizes that there are these universals but cannot understand why. He knows what he feels is real, yet is faced with a universe in which his feelings are meaningless(293). Again, he is living a dichotomy of what Schaeffer described as a two-story house.

This picture won Kevin Carter the Pulitzer Prize in 1994. Carter, a South African photojournalist who paid his own way to Sudan in order to document the atrocities that occured during the mid-90s, came face-to-face with the despair of man and didn't know what to do with it. Winning the prize launched Carter's career and gave him worldwide fame. The sky was the limit for this up-and-coming photographer. Inside, however was turmoil:

His picture of an emaciated girl collapsing on the way to a feeding centre, as a plump vulture lurked in the background, was published first in The New York Times and The Mail & Guardian, a Johannesburg weekly. The reaction to the picture was so strong that The New York Times published an unusual editor's note on the fate of the girl. Mr Carter said she resumed her trek to the feeding centre. He chased away the vulture.

Afterwards, he told an interviewer, he sat under a tree for a long time, "smoking cigarettes and crying". His father, Mr Jimmy Carter laid [sic] last night: "Kevin always carried around the horror of the work he did."

Just two months after winning this most prestigious award, Kevin Carter parked his vehicle near a river where he had played as a child, used a garden hose to funnel the fumes from the exhaust pipe into the cab of his red pick-up truck, and died. A note found next to him read, "I'm really, really sorry. The pain of life overrides the joy to the point that joy does not exist."

Kevin Carter experienced the reality of life apart from a unified answer to life, and it was more than he could bare. At the age of 33, Pulitzer Prize winning photographer Kevin Carter was dead.

Kevin's death is a tragedy. The situation of the little girl in the photo is tragic. What are we to do? Everything within us says the death of Kevin Carter is wrong. The little girl with nothing to eat is wrong. It should not be this way. This should not be allowed to happen. Where are the answers?

Francis Schaeffer points out that the answers start with man. Of course, man being finite, he cannot end with himself, but it starts there. We see these situations as tragic because we understand that man is significant. We don't hear of these types of events and brush them off as unimportant. Our reaction is different upon seeing a dead dog on the side of the road as opposed to finding a dead human being. Why? Because, though we may be saddened by the dead dog, we understand it is intrinsically different than the death of a human. The answer to why this is so is provided by no other philosophical system except the Judeo-Christian system.

Within the Judeo-Christian system of thought, man has been created in the image of an infinite-personal God. In He Is There and He Is Not Silent, Francis Schaeffer explains that man has meaning because of this fact. This is the only answer that gives reason for the personality of man. There is no way to derive personality from the impersonal. Schaeffer explains the reason man aspires for the reality of personality is because it is “in line with what was originally there and what has always been.” (283) He goes on to say, “Man's damnation today is that he can find no meaning for man, but if we begin with the personal beginning we have an absolutely opposite situation. We have the reality of the fact that personality does have meaning because it is not alienated from what has always been, and what is, and what always will be.” (283)

This answer is the only one that works. It is the only explanation for the reality that we experience every day. If this were not true, there would be no reason for Kevin Carter to have taken the images that he experienced while in Sudan so personally. He could have simply shrugged them off as nothing more significant than any number of dead animals one sees while driving down the road every day. Man would have no meaning. Kevin couldn't do it, though. Nor can you or I. Man is more and only the Christian answer provides the metaphysical reason why. Schaeffer put it this way:

There is only one philosophy, one religion, that fills this need in all the world's thought, whether the East, the West, the ancient, the modern, the new, the old. Only one fills the philosophical need of existence, of Being, and it is the Judeo-Christian God -- not just an abstract concept, but rather that this God is really there. He exists. There is not other answer....” (286)

It is this "God who is there”, Schaeffer says, that gives us the answers for both personality and also for unity and diversity. In man, we see personality, but we also see unity and diversity. Other philosophies may provide for any one of these problems of reality, but none give the necessary comprehensive answer. Naturalism, for example, provides for unity, but fails in the area of personality and diversity. In man, there is both unity and diversity. We are not the same. In the God of the Bible, there is a basis for personality, there is a basis for unity and there is a basis for diversity.

In Scripture, there are answers for these difficulties because we understand that man is special. We know this experientially, but we understand why as we read that he was made in the image of a real, live personal Being. We understand why there is so much pain in the world when we read that, though man was made in the image of God, that image was tarnished as man rebelled against God, leading to a real, historical fall of man. As a result, man is capable of doing deplorable things. Famines are possible, murder, hatred, any number of things we could name are a direct result of man's rebellion against God; of man going his own way, doing what is right in his own eyes, and denying the existence of the only basis that provides a unified answer to right and wrong, good and bad. Through man's effort to find these answers apart from God, he has discovered that he is dead. He is without meaning and he is without ultimate hope. He knows this experientially, if he is honest with himself. All is futile. Man knows this and the Bible describes it.

However, there is a unified answer and there is a hope. Christianity and only Christianity provides not only the explanation for such things man experiences, but also provides a basis for hope beyond the experiences. Though man is dead, he can be made alive again. Schaeffer explains that with the Christian answer, four things immediately emerge (298-300):

1. We can explain that man is now cruel, without God being a bad God. We understand that the situation is not that a bad god created bad people and that they are now as they have always been. We now have a good God who created man in his image. This man openly rebelled against God and is now capable of great cruelty.

2. There is hope of a solution for this moral problem which is not intrinsic to the 'mannishness' of man – if that is what man always has been – then there is no hope of a solution. It is in this setting that the substitutionary, propitiatory death of Christ ceases to be an incomprehensible concept....[It] now has meaning....We can have the hope of a solution concerning man if man is abnormal now.

3. On this basis we can have an adequate ground for fighting evil, including social evil and social injustice. In other words, modern man without God has no basis for fighting evil because without an infinite, absolute law-giver, the word evil has no meaning. Schaeffer says, however, that “the Christian can fight evil without fighting God.” This is on the realization that God neither created nor endorsed evil and, therefore, to fight evil is to fight against that which God hates.

4. We can have real morals and moral absolutes, for now God is absolutely good. There is the total exclusion of evil from God. God's character is the moral absolute of the universe....It is not that there is a moral absolute behind God that binds man and God, because that which is farthest back is always finally God. Rather, it is God Himself and His character who is the moral absolute of the universe.

So, there is a reason for right and for wrong, for love and for hate, for good and for bad. There is a reason man feels hopeless in regards to the future, but through the provision the Bible speaks of, there is hope of redemption. Through the death and resurrection of Christ, the punishment (which is separation from God through man's decision to rebel) was taken upon God Himself, and man can, again, find himself in relation to that which always has been; the One in whose image he was made and the One who provides both the answers to life and the hope for the joy Kevin Carter tragically could not find in the midst of his pain.

Man may be dead, but he can live again.

__________________
Schaeffer, Francis. The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1990.

Labels: David C. Price

Labels: David C. Price

What happens when Man dies? Not the individual man dying physically, but Man dying as Man. What happens when Man, as the pinnacle of creation, loses his place; when the essence of man is lost?

In case you missed it, we have already seen what happens. As a matter of fact, the results continue to be manifested all around us. To many, Man is already dead.

In his classic book, The God Who Is There, part of the important work, The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy, Francis Schaeffer describes what he calls the “Line of Despair,” representing a new era in which the death of absolutes has occurred. Introduced by the thought of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, this line of despair is what inevitably led to the “death of man.” It was Hegel who introduced the groundbreaking idea of a synthesis of truth whereby truth was no longer based on thesis and antithesis (this is The Law of Non-contradiction: a proposition “A” cannot be both “A” and “non-A” at the same time), but rather synthesis. In other words, truth became relative; subjective rather than objective. Now, “A” could be either “A” or “non-A” (it's opposite) depending on one's perspective. There is nothing intrinsically true in a proposition. Therefore, it can never be considered universally true for all people at all times. Man could no longer depend on absolutes. Black and white was completely replaced with various shades of gray and “truth” would now be defined by the autonomous individual who had the power to determine what was true...at least for himself.

Above the line of despair (prior to 1800 in Europe and 1935 in the U.S.), Schaeffer says “we find men living with their romantic notions of absolutes (though with no sufficient logical basis).” (8) Below the line of despair (after 1850 in Europe and 1935 in the U.S.), man has given up his notion of unified truth and a unity of thought regarding the human experience. This theme was later taken up in the mid-19^th Century by Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who concluded that rationalism could only lead to pessimism and the liberal theology of the Lutheran Church of which he had been a part. Consequently, carried out to its logical conclusion, rationalism leads to nihilism. Therefore, one must abandon rationalism in order to validate one's existence and make a “leap of faith” to the living God. As James Sire points out in The Universe Next Door, Kierkegaard's philosophy was birthed as a response to the “dead orthodoxy of the Danish Lutheranism.” (96)

For Kierkegaard, this meant one could not find meaning through reason or rationality, but rather, in spite of any sensory evidence to the contrary, one must believe in God and put faith in him (a religious theme later developed and clarified by the neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth). Faith and reason were no longer unified, but put in different classifications. Schaeffer illustrated this as a two-story house, placing faith in the upper story and rationality in the lower. This represented a dichotomy within man where, if he is honest (based on rationalism—not to be confused with rationality—in which man begins with himself and tries to make sense of the universe), he will admit that there is no real meaning; no real purpose or hope in the world. There is no real truth that he can see or rely on. However, since he cannot live his life this way, he must have blind “faith” in something; he must believe that there is meaning and hope and love, etc., even when he knows it is all an illusion. In short, against all reason, he must make a “leap of faith” and trust in that which he cannot see. This more rightly explains that branch that came from Kierkegaard's philosophy known as secular or atheistic existentialism (as later developed by such philosophers as Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre) which Kierkegaard himself would have disavowed. Kierkegaard's thoughts were more rightly applied theistically to an authentic belief in a real God in spite of the poor condition of the world around him. In other words, man could not get to God through reason and must therefore span the chasm by other means.

What begins to happen is man comes to realize that there is no real meaning to life; there is no real purpose and man is just one great big, cosmic accident. Man may pretend that there is a god in order to try and feel good about himself; he may choose to reside in that “upper story” of faith and religion, but deep down he knows that there is really nothing there—the rationalism of the “lower story” has told him so. In Escape From Reason, Schaeffer describes the despair in man as arising from “the abandonment of the hope of a unified answer for knowledge and life. Modern man continues to hang on to his rationalism and his autonomous revolt even though to do so he has to abandon any rational hope of a unified answer.” In other words, he despairs in the knowledge that man cannot live honestly without this ever-present dichotomy. If he is to escape absolute nihilism; to transcend nihilism as Albert Camus wrote in one of his essays, man must live a lie, and lies only go so far. Schaeffer goes on to explain the reality that in the lower story, on the basis of all reason, man as man is dead....Man has no meaning, no purpose, no significance. There is only pessimism concerning man as man. But up above, on the basis of a nonrational, nonreasonable leap, there is a nonreasonable faith which gives optimisim. This is modern man's total dichotomy.” (238)

Perhaps Schaeffer explains the current situation of man from a rationalistic perspective most succinctly when he says, “On the basis of all reason, man is meaningless. He has always been dead as far as rationality and logic are concerned....It does not mean he was alive and died. He was always dead, but did not know enough to know he was dead.” (238) Now he is fully aware.

So what happens when man dies? Anything. It really does not matter since there is no meaning. There is no right and wrong. Not really. What we call right and wrong are mere arbitrary rules laid out by the majority for the survival of the species which can be changed on a whim to then become the “right” answer. But what makes survival “right” or “good”? If there is no meaning, perhaps annihilation or death should be considered “good.” There is no love and there are no morals so anything goes, even high-tech sexual partners that you read about in my previous post. Why not? At best, men are animals following their instinctive, primal drive for self-satisfaction or perhaps you prefer to consider man as a machine, blindly “programmed” by an impersonal universe in which free choices are nothing more than illusions. Why shouldn't man have “sex” with a machine? There is no qualitative difference between the two. Under this prevailing philosophy, man can do anything man pleases and everything he does is right as long as he thinks so.

This is what happens when man dies.

What Happens When Man Dies - Part II.

Labels: David C. Price

When America's top sex researchers gathered recently to discuss the next decade in their field, some envisioned a future in which artificial sex partners could cater to every fantasy.

"What is very likely to be present before 2016 would be a multi-sensual experience of virtual sex," said Julia Heiman, director of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana University, Bloomington.

"There is a possibility of developing erotic materials for yourself that would allow you to create a partner of certain dimensions and qualities, the partner saying certain things in that interaction, certain things happening in that interaction." Full story here.

Labels: David C. Price

Christianity was front and center on the campus of Yale University as a group of conservative evangelicals launched a campaign called "I Agree with Adam." Yale student and writer for the Yale Herald, Lucas Kwong, covered the event. The following is an excerpt:

On Monday evening, at an open discussion forum with Christian academic John Hinkson, verbal jousting gave way to more subdued debate. Most of the roughly 20 people there seemed to be Christians seeking answers to their own theological dilemmas, but a large part of the discussion was dominated by Ross Kennedy-Shaffer, ES ’08, a self-proclaimed agnostic. When the forum concluded, Kennedy -

Shaffer offered a cautiously supportive take. “Any big issue like this is worth talking about,” he said. I asked him whether he, like Burch, saw an ugly underside to the campaign’s evangelical focus. “The societal stereotype is that evangelicals act like they have all the answers,” Ross mused, “but at Yale the attitude [of evangelicals] is, ‘Let’s talk about this.’ Whoever designed the ads did a good job of enticing me to come out.”

The article made for an interesting read regarding spiritual life on the campus of one of America's most elite institutions. Access the full article, entitled "Wearing faith on my sleeve, with no T-shirt," here.

Labels: David C. Price

Outsourcing. Everybody is complaining about outsourcing. As a matter of fact, outsourcing is becoming so widespread in some industries that it is virtually impossible to speak to a customer service representative in which English is their native tongue (at least until they transfer you on to the 2nd level technician). It has just become a way of life.

OK, I understand the rationale for that: big companies pay smaller salaries to those who answer basic questions and can more readily find those overseas who are more likely to accept such jobs. These companies have neither the time nor inclination to find the number of employees that it takes to handle the volume of problems their products inevitably produce and the bigger the company, the quicker they are throwing out substandard products that have more problems that require more technicians to handle the headaches from the problems their products are producing. Been there; done that.

Then there is the whole series of headaches one gets from maneuvering the never-ending labrynth of the customer service phone system. I literally spent over three hours on a phone call for a particular product two weeks ago only to have my call dropped while waiting for the third "customer service" representative. Been there? Done that?

The point is there seems to be no limit to what can be outsourced. This morning I heard of the latest outsourcing trend: parenting. Yes, I know, parenting has been outsourced for some time through nanny's, day-care, au pairs, etc. That is not to say that everyone who uses such services are neglecting their parenting responsibilities, in my opinion. There are circumstances in which parents simply need an extra set of hands or a couple of hours in the day to get some other responsibilities accomplished. I'm not casting judgment on such families who are doing all they can without neglecting their basic responsibilities.

On the other hand, there are those situations where some people like to have children but quite frankly don't really like raising children. That would be called irresponsible parenting, to use the word parenting loosely. In such cases, their children are literally being raised by someone else. Perhaps I am, by default, casting judgment on such people because that is clearly wrong. Perhaps it would be better for them (to use the terminology my wife enjoyed using in describing when our dog was spayed) to have their "puppy box" removed.

The latest trend involves the hiring of coaches. This involves hiring a "professional" to come to your home and teach your children such basic things as how to go potty, how to ride a bicycle, how to throw and catch a ball, etc. In other words, things that are traditionally taught by parents are now being taught to children by a professional...by a stranger. An “expert”, perhaps, but a stranger, nonetheless.

Lest you think that these are the above-mentioned parents who simply dump their children off on these coaches and leave to do something else, most of the parents seem to be present on the sidelines watching, encouraging, but simply feeling unable to successfully teach their children themselves. They are participants, to a degree, but at best they are giving a meager dose of moral support.

Is this a good idea? In a word, no. There is a bond that children form with parents by doing these sorts of things together, regardless of how adept parents are to teach. Unfortunately, it seems that parents have gotten some kind of idea that unless they are masters of such skills themselves they are unqualified to pass on any sort of training to their children. This is a sad commentary on our society.

My advice: suck it up and get over it! Your children need you more than they need to be expertly trained at this age. They need involvement. If you need to, get a book and learn how to sit your child on a toilet seat. Throw a ball and let them chase after it until they learn to catch it. Let them throw it to you and then you go chase it until they get better. It's not rocket science.

Put your child on a bike and run alongside them. Pick them up, put a bandage on their skinned knee, give them a hug and a kiss and put them back on the bike. Repeat steps one through six until steps three through six are eliminated. voila!

If coaches are really necessary, let them coach you how to teach your kid and then you do it. The result? Your kids will love you and be able to say their mom and/or dad taught them to ride a bike. They can tell their friends that their dad taught them how to play baseball. And you? You'll be a super hero...and there just aren't enough of those left in the world anymore.

Labels: David C. Price

...weekend.

"He has risen."

Labels: David C. Price

CNN.com - 'South Park' aims at censors, hits Bush, Jesus - Apr 13, 2006: "NEW YORK (AP) -- Banned by Comedy Central from showing an image of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, the creators of 'South Park' skewered their own network for hypocrisy in the cartoon's most recent episode.

The comedy -- in an episode aired during Holy Week for Christians -- instead featured an image of Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and the American flag."...

...Parker and Stone were angered when told by Comedy Central several weeks ago that they could not run an image of Mohammed, according to a person close to the show who didn't want to be identified because of the issue's sensitivity.

The network's decision was made over concerns for public safety, the person said.

Comedy Central said in a statement issued Thursday: "In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision." Its executives would not comment further.

As is often the case with Parker and Stone, they built "South Park" around the incident. In Wednesday's episode, the character Kyle is shown trying to persuade a Fox network executive to air an uncensored "Family Guy" even though it had an image of Mohammed.

"Either it's all OK, or none of it is," Kyle said. "Do the right thing."

The executive decides to strike a blow for free speech and agrees to show it. But at the point where Mohammed is to be seen, the screen is filled with the message: "Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network."

It is followed shortly by the images of Christ, Bush and the flag.

Labels: David C. Price

Sitting in the recovery room after Karen's procedure, I am awash with thoughts and emotions as Karen lays sleeping on the hospital bed beside me. I reflect on the words of the physician who, though very kind, kept referring to our child as tissue. Tissue. How very clinical. Void of emotions. I suppose it really is, isn't it? Clinical and void of emotions, I mean. After all, this procedure is not performed only on those who must have a dead child removed from them. It is performed regularly on those who have absolutely normal and healthy children growing inside. I suppose one must convince themselves that it is only tissue in order to perform this so often and in varying circumstances?

Ten minutes. Did you know that? It takes only ten minutes to complete such a procedure.

In a much deeper way, I hurt for those individuals who have elected to “terminate a pregnancy.” Denial only goes so far. I mean, I suppose for a while you can buy into all the talk of “tissue” and “product of conception” and so forth, but not in the long run...not most people. I can't buy that. In spite of what you tell yourself, down in your heart you know this is more than tissue. You know this is life...and you know when it's gone. Today, we didn't have tissue removed or some by-product of conception. It doesn't matter what I tell myself to try and make it less than it is--my heart doesn't lie. My heart is no different than anyone else's...it refuses to be easily broken over a lie or self-deception.

On my way back to the hospital after taking our son to school, almost time for Karen's surgery to begin, a song came on the radio. It was the song that I mentioned on my last post. It provided me a few moments of holy mourning as I worshiped God through this personal storm. In that moment I was comforted and reassured that He was there.

I don't think one realizes the pain and sense of loss unless or until you go through it. It is so common it almost becomes a sterile fact of life. Sure, 1 in 3 pregnancies end in miscarriage, but so what? Those don't lessen the individual loss but rather illuminate the scope of how many people this touches.

I praise God for the comfort that He has provided us.

You know, we went through this involuntarily. I can't imagine the pain that can come from going through this under different circumstances. Even then, though, these are people who need to know that there can be healing and there can be forgiveness.

Thanks again for all the concern that has been expressed to us from literally around the world. You have blessed us tremendously.

Labels: David C. Price

Labels: David C. Price

NOTE: If you are the parent of a young child, please read this post.

I originally missed this story when it first came out on March 31, but caught wind of it over the weekend. The LA Times reports that students are challenging teachers more regularly and more effectively that try to teach neo-Darwinism in the classroom.

In Liberty, MO, biology teacher Al Frisby has his hands full:

As his students rummage for their notebooks, Frisby introduces his central theme: Every creature on Earth has been shaped by random mutation and natural selection — in a word, by evolution.

The challenges begin at once.

"Isn't it true that mutations only make an animal weaker?" sophomore Chris Willett demands. " 'Cause I was watching one time on CNN and they mutated monkeys to see if they could get one to become human and they couldn't."

Frisby tries to explain that evolution takes millions of years, but Willett isn't listening. "I feel a tail growing!" he calls to his friends, drawing laughter.

Students are not only educating themselves to the problem of Darwinian evolution, but the outcry against the teaching of Darwinism in school exclusively has caused many churches to begin taking this seriously, training their students more effectively in basic apologetics, teaching them the types of questions to ask.

Two decades of political and legal maneuvering on evolution has spilled over into public schools, and biology teachers are struggling to respond. Loyal to the accounts they've learned in church, students are taking it upon themselves to wedge creationism into the classroom, sometimes with snide comments but also with sophisticated questions — and a fervent faith.

As sophomore Daniel Read put it: "I'm going to say as much about God as I can in school, even if the teachers can't."

Such challenges have become so disruptive that some teachers dread the annual unit on evolution — or skip it altogether.

The new concern for parents who do not want their children taught Darwinism is the only (or best) explanation for the origin of life is that the American Association for the Advancement of Science has put together a teaching guide that will begin indoctrinating children at a much earlier age:

In response, the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science is distributing a 24-page guide to teaching the scientific principles behind evolution, starting in kindergarten. The group also has issued talking points for teachers flustered by demands to present "both sides."

The annual science teachers convention next week in Anaheim will cover similar ground, with workshops such as "Teaching Evolution in a Climate of Controversy."

"We're not going to roll over and take this," said Alan I. Leshner, the executive publisher of the journal Science. "These teachers are facing phenomenal pressure. They need help."

About half of all Americans dismiss as preposterous the scientific consensus that life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Some hold to a literal reading of Genesis: God created the universe about 6,000 years ago. Others accept an ancient cosmos but take the variety, complexity and beauty of Earth's creatures as proof that life was crafted by an intelligent designer.

Religious accounts of life's origins have generally been kept out of the science classroom, sometimes by court order. But polls show a majority of Americans are unhappy with the evolution-only approach.

As the father of a soon-to-be kindergartener, it is disconcerting that such a strategy exists to begin the indoctrinating so early (though it is no surprise). This fact has been a major concern for my wife and I as we have begun the process of looking at schools for our child. Fortunately, as the groundswell against neo-Darwinism continues to mature, there are more and more resources that can help weed out the problems of Darwinism (and they are legion) for you and your family.

What this should stress to those of us who realize that Darwinism cannot adequately account for the origins of life on Earth is that we cannot wait to begin teaching basic apologetics to our children until they are older. By the time they are in the second grade, it is highly probable that they will be thoroughly indoctrinated in the religious system known as Darwinism.

Many teachers, such as Mr. Frisby, are taking new tactics, choosing to work a strategy that does not overtly challenge a student's religious belief, but instead demonstrates how Darwinism can work in tandem with Christian faith. He is adopting the two-story approach that Francis Schaeffer talks about in The God Who Is There and Nancy Pearcey expounds upon in Total Truth. He advocates leaving your faith out of the classroom; maintain your religious beliefs at church, but emphasizes they should not be a part of scientific study:

Growing up in nearby Independence, Mo., Frisby learned the biblical creation account from his mother, a Sunday school teacher. "I believed it without question," he said. "It was literal to me."

He doesn't remember hearing about evolution in high school, but then he didn't pay much attention to academics. It wasn't until college that he discovered a passion for biology.

One evening in 1968, Frisby was dissecting a shark's heart for a night course. As he spread the organ out in front of him, studying the looping valves and arteries, he had what he can only describe, with wonder, as a religious experience. "All those beautiful arches coming off the heart — it was just too perfect," he said. "I thought to myself, 'God could have created this animal just this way.' "

That satisfied his religious nature. But the scientist within him wouldn't let the matter rest. Dissecting more animal hearts, Frisby found the same awe-inspiring beauty. He also came to understand how an organ as complex as the heart could evolve; he could see the progression there on his lab table, from one chamber to two to four.

Frisby still believed that God created the universe, but his faith couldn't tell him what happened next; to answer that question, he concluded, he would need science.

At 22, he decided the best way to honor his faith was to hold it sacred in his heart — and to keep it out of his lab. [italics added]

Casting about for ways to explain that to his students, Frisby tried a new approach this year: He strapped a leather tool belt around his waist. Life, he told the class, required a variety of tools. Sometimes they would find it helpful to use art or music to help them make sense of their world. Sometimes they would use religion.

"We're in science class now, so we're going to use our science tools," he told them. "I don't want to be in a debate about religion or literature or art. My job is to explain evolution so you can understand it. Whether you accept it or not, that's your business."

What Mr. Frisby calls a "tool" is actually his entire worldview. What Mr. Frisby is really saying to his students is, trade in your biblical worldview for that of a Naturalist. In other words, for Mr. Frisby to make his differing beliefs work, he must hold at least two entirely different and competing worldviews.

The problem with Mr. Frisby's approach is that he is forced to live a life of dichotomy. He has his faith which speaks to a certain part of his life and his science that speaks to another and never shall the twain meet, so to speak. Unfortunate for Mr. Frisby, that worldview approach cannot work. Mr. Frisby is advocating a philosophical system that cannot hold up in the real world. A few minutes of questioning regarding his personal life would quickly reveal this truth.
I have said this before on this blog so I'll not go into the same detail again, but Frisby cannot live this philosophy out honestly. Christian faith and Darwinism do not mix because they lead to different conclusions; they answer worldview questions such as the meaning and purpose of life, the problem of evil, the nature of ultimate reality, etc. completely differently. Christianity leads to a living, personal God who directs and guides and provides purpose. Darwinism on the other hand leads to chance, irrationality, and the impossibility of a personal God.

Attempting to unite the two does not work when they are taken to their logical conclusion. That really doesn't matter to people like Mr. Frisby and others who teach your children, though. Their concern is not your child's trust in God but rather to use "religious speak" to serve a very narrow agenda. Mr. Frisby may talk of God, but it is only enough to have Him "put back in the tool belt."

If your philosophy of life is not able to deal with all issues, including religion and science without having to change to a completely different set of guiding principles, you're frankly living a lie...and whether you want them to or not, your children will be soon, as well.

Labels: David C. Price

The drive toward ''selective'' immigration is inspired by electoral politics, by fears that some immigrants are not integrating and may even be vectors for terrorism and militant Islam, and by widely shared concerns that immigrants overtax welfare systems and compete for scarce jobs.

French Interior Minister and presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy championed a bill that would make it more difficult for poor immigrants with little education and few skills to start a new life in France -- long one of Europe's most coveted destinations for immigrants.

Labels: David C. Price

Nine out of 10 women interviewed in-depth about their views said they thought one night stands were immoral.

The researchers investigating female attitudes to sex and sexuality found most women had more traditional views of casual sex than they expected.

The results of the Sheffield team's study of 46 women is presented at a psychology conference on Friday.

They found only 10% of the women aged 23 to 83 who were interviewed at length thought "no strings" sex was acceptable.

Oh, now you believe me? Forget that God (in the Bible) has been saying it all along. No-o-o-o, but let some group of women (a majority, no less), who have experienced the pain and emptiness first hand that these things leave and now you go, "Hm, isn't that interesting?" Not convinced? Let's press on:

They found that although participants thought one-night stands were immoral, they did not condemn women for having them as many of them had indulged themselves.

But there was a view that those that did had "something lacking in their lives".

Look at that! There it is: had something lacking in their lives! You read it...right there in black and white. Well, sort of an off-yellowish color and brown, but nevertheless, you saw it. That's it! They understood they had something lacking in their lives. You know what they're talking about, don't you? We've all felt it. No, we don't admit it and we've gotten very good at surpessing it, but it's there...come on...it's there, isn't it?

What is it, you ask? I'll tell you. God. There, I said it. Yes, it's God. ("Oh, great, here comes the preaching.") Well, yeah, maybe, but it's my blog and I'll preach if I want to. Not really, I'm not going to preach, but I am going to put it in your face that it is God. We all search for everything that will fill that same void that those women are talking about: power, money, sex...whatever we hear will take care of it. But you know what? It doesn't. Why? It was never meant to. When you and I were designed and created by God (you didn't really think we crawled out of primordial soup, did you? Really? Nah, I didn't think so), we were made in such a way that only one thing would satisfy...one thing only. You guessed it...the Designer, Himself. After all, think about it. if you had created something as cool as a human, wouldn't you make it so that the only thing that would satisfy it was yourself? Sure, I know I would. So, why the surpise when all this other stuff doesn't do the trick? There's only one thing that gets it...Christ alone.

Let's read a little more:

[Dr Sharron Hinchcliff] said the results did not fit in with images of today's independent woman who can go out and get sexual fulfilment without the ties of a relationship.

She told the BBC News website: "Women positioned sex very much in the context of an intimate relationship.

"But when they talked about casual sex they didn't give those reasons.

"Rather it was because they were looking for something - looking for love or because they had got drunk or were high on drugs.

"There was a real sense that they were out of control."

She added: "Sex is an emotional experience for women so how could they have sex without being emotionally involved?"

Women get it even when they don't get what they got. Follow? They understand that intimacy is about relationship; connecting. That's exactly the way God intended. We are created in His image. He is about intimacy and connecting. We want what He wants. We're wired that way. When we don't establish lasting relationships built on commitment with one person for a lifetime and settle for just sleeping around, we're not only cheating ourselves of that attachment, we're literally killing ourselves...we're short-circuiting our wiring. Ka-boom.

Now, will having this information change society? Probably not (though it could change you). Instead, those trying to sell us a bill of goods that says the more sex with the most partners in the most promiscuous ways is where its at will just try new tactics. Like this:

Dr Tuppy Owens, of the Sexual Freedom Coalition, said casual sex could be an empty experience if there was no mental connection.

Dr Owens added: "However, if you go out wondering what might happen, ready to give as well as receive, you might have the most wonderful adventure."

Mental connection. Most wonderful adventure. No, the most wonderful adventure is living with your wife (or husband) and being able to trust her explicitly because of her commitment to Christ first and then me second; knowing that she's not going to make the circuit sleeping with every guy that looks better than me when I'm not around and that as long as we live we're going to make this journey through life together because neither of us believes in divorce. Can you say that? Our commitment is solid because our faith in Christ is solid. Period.

And the rest? Here's the end of the story:

The results of the research appear to clash with the results of a national survey in 2000 which found Britons are more promiscuous than ever before.

The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles 2000 (Natsal 2000) found that men and women have more sexual partners than they did 10 years ago and are more likely to be unfaithful.

Labels: David C. Price

MIAMI, Florida (Reuters) -- The New Testament says that Jesus walked on water, but a Florida university professor believes there could be a less miraculous explanation -- he walked on a floating piece of ice.

Professor Doron Nof also theorized in the early 1990s that Moses's parting of the Red Sea had solid science behind it.

Nof, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University, said on Tuesday that his study found an unusual combination of water and atmospheric conditions in what is now northern Israel could have led to ice formation on the Sea of Galilee.

Nof used records of the Mediterranean Sea's surface temperatures and statistical models to examine the dynamics of the Sea of Galilee, which Israelis know now as Lake Kinneret.

The study found that a period of cooler temperatures in the area between 1,500 and 2,600 years ago could have included the decades in which Jesus lived.

A drop in temperature below freezing could have caused ice -- thick enough to support a human -- to form on the surface of the freshwater lake near the western shore, Nof said. It might have been nearly impossible for distant observers to see a piece of floating ice surrounded by water.

Nof said he offered his study -- published in the April edition of the Journal of Paleolimnology -- as a "possible explanation" for Jesus' walk on water.

"If you ask me if I believe someone walked on water, no, I don't," Nof said. "Maybe somebody walked on the ice, I don't know. I believe that something natural was there that explains it."