I suppose by way of a general announcement, my wife and I are expecting our second child, due April 9, 2007. For those who have been coming around awhile, you know that we suffered a miscarriage a few months back. This time we decided to sit on the news for a little longer until we were at least past the first trimester where the chance for miscarriage drops tremendously. We've recently passed that milestone and, though things can always happen, we feel much more at ease this time through. We still haven't told our son who requested not to know next time until "the doctors know they can save the baby.” He took the miscarriage pretty hard.

At one of the appointments a few weeks ago, Karen's doctor asked that standard question regarding testing. You know the testing I'm talking about, right? Amniocentesis. This is the level of testing that determines if a child has some type of genetic defect such as Downs Syndrome. We were asked if we were interested in this testing so that we could make an informed decision. Informed decision? Personally, I see no decision to be made that hadn't already been made: 1. We trusted Christ in all things 2. We determined to try for a child. Beyond deciding on a name, choices complete. What happens beyond that is out of our control and, frankly, none of our business. If any doubt, refer to choice 1.

I was recently reminded of this topic of aborting babies who have the chance of being born with Downs (I say "chance" because these tests are not conclusive. We have a friend who had the testing done just so she would know what to expect. The test came back positive, but turned out to be dead wrong...the baby was fine). Anyway, I was reminded of that appointment as I just finished reading a few minutes ago about a mass grave found in Germany in which were found buried children suspected of having Downs Syndrome. Apparently, as a part of Hitler's euthanasia program, children with such illnesses were simply murdered.

I want to draw a comparison and contrast here for just a second. We read with disdain a paragraph like this one:

German authorities suspect that some of the remains found in a World War II-era mass grave are from child victims of Adolf Hitler's euthanasia program, which killed people the Nazis considered worthless, officials said Friday.

Labels: David C. Price

Labels: David C. Price

If you are a frequent visitor to this blog, you may have noticed that for several months there has been a single book on the right sidebar under “Current Reads.” I should note that it has been there for so long not because it has been a labor to read through nor because I am a slow reader...at least my slow reading is not the whole reason. Simply put, my reading schedule took a hit over the summer and was very slow to recover.

However, I am not overly apologetic for allowing Christian Theologies of Scripture to remain in that column for so long because it is a book worth some exposure. If you are a serious student of theology, I certainly hope you will get it.

There are many wonderful theologies out there that help us systematize Scripture into a form that gives us the “big picture” of what the Bible is saying and how the various doctrines found therein fit together. Each of these are works in which the author is conveying what he sees as the major themes and what he believes is the most consistent way of taking the whole of Scripture and seeking to understand and convey how it all works as a unified whole. Perhaps you have read many of these works and found them helpful. This is not one of them.

I must be quick to point out that while it is helpful, it isn't meant to be another systematic theology. This book is an important tool that can deepen our understanding of the process many early Christian thinkers as well as those considered somewhat less than orthodox such as Karl Barth and Friedrich Schleiermacher have taken in developing their own theologies of Scripture and what Scripture means to them.

The collection of essays contained in Christian Theologies of Scripture analyzes the approach and view/understanding of Scripture taken by such men as St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther and John Calvin to name only a few. From the Patristic and Medieval periods through the modern Feminist Theology movement, Christian Theologies of Scripture unpacks for us the major influences on Scriptural interpretation, giving us an invaluable opportunity to understand the views of many who have been instrumental in shaping our own view of Scripture and modern Christianity as a whole.

Justin Holcomb, editor of the volume, sums up the purpose of the work by saying, “In mapping the theologies of Scripture, this book serves as a guide to the variety of views about scripture found throughout the Christian tradition and can also assist us in developing theologies of scripture for our present and future contexts.” He goes on to say that “ultimately, this is not a book with one answer to the one question, What is Scripture? Indeed, as demonstrated by the wide diversity of Christian theologies of Scripture presented in this book...there is no single Christian theology of Scripture.

To that purpose, I believe Justin has achieved his goal. After reading this book, I have a better understanding of the perspectives of each person and/or group that has contributed so much to Christian understanding and thought. Whether we agree with the views of these people (and perhaps especially if we don't), it is important to understand their views and approach to Scripture so that we might either learn from their insights or guard against their errors. Christian Theologies of Scripture is a sharp arrow in the quiver of biblical and theological understanding.

If you are interested in reading this book for yourself, it can be purchased through the Espresso Roast Book Room in the "Theology" section.

Labels: David C. Price

"You don't have to be a biologist or an anthropologist to see how closely the great apes--gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans--resemble us. Even a child can see that their bodies are pretty much the same as ours, apart from some exaggerated proportions and extra body hair. "

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that some who are predisposed to naturalism (darwinian evolution) will go to prove their point. We look alike and we act alike (except for when and where we don't), therefore, we must be related. In spite of the fact that a large majority of the American population has written them off as ridiculous, scientists still try and push this sad philosophy on us. The latest is this article in a recent edition of Time.


I should probably admit at the onset that I'm not feeling very gracious as I write because, frankly, the absurdity of this flawed and ridiculous idea doesn't really even warrant the attention given it. So, if I sound a bit annoyed or sarcastic or in any way unfriendly, it's not meant to be directed at the writer of the article, but at darwinism, itself. It is a weak philosophy, poorly disguised as science, masqueraded as fact, pushed on a public that doesn't really care much for it. Nevertheless, here we are.

Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level. When it comes to DNA, a human is closer to a chimp than a mouse is to a rat.

Yet tiny differences, sprinkled throughout the genome, have made all the difference. Agriculture, language, art, music, technology and philosophy--all the achievements that make us profoundly different from chimpanzees and make a chimp in a business suit seem so deeply ridiculous--are somehow encoded within minute fractions of our genetic code. Nobody yet knows precisely where they are or how they work, but somewhere in the nuclei of our cells are handfuls of amino acids, arranged in a specific order, that endow us with the brainpower to outthink and outdo our closest relatives on the tree of life. They give us the ability to speak and write and read, to compose symphonies, paint masterpieces and delve into the molecular biology that makes us what we are.

Even before the human genome was sequenced back in 2000, says biologist Sean Carroll of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, "it was estimated that humans had 100,000 genes. When we got the genome, the estimate dropped to 25,000. Now we know the overall number is about 22,000, and it might even come down to 19,000."

This shockingly small number made it clear to scientists that genes alone don't dictate the differences between species; the changes, they now know, also depend on molecular switches that tell genes when and where to turn on and off. "Take the genes involved in creating the hand, the penis and the vertebrae," says Lovejoy. "These share some of the same structural genes. The pelvis is another example. Humans have a radically different pelvis from that of apes. It's like having the blueprints for two different brick houses. The bricks are the same, but the results are very different."

Those molecular switches lie in the noncoding regions of the genome--once known dismissively as junk DNA but lately rechristened the dark matter of the genome. Much of the genome's dark matter is, in fact, junk--the residue of evolutionary events long forgotten and no longer relevant. But a subset of the dark matter known as functional noncoding DNA, comprising some 3% to 4% of the genome and mostly embedded within and around the genes, is crucial. "Coding regions are much easier for us to study," says Carroll, whose new book, The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, delves deep into the issue. "But
it may be the dark matter that governs a lot of what we actually see."

The Neanderthals weren't nearly as primitive as many assume, observes Eddy Rubin, director of the Department of Energy's Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, Calif. "They had fire, burial ceremonies, the rudiments of what we would call art. They were advanced--but nothing like what humans have done in the last 10,000 to 15,000 years." We eventually outcompeted them, and the key to how we did so may well lie in our genes.

This man sounds as though he's stating all fact...like he was there, yet it is much speculation. It's not that archeology hasn't turned up much of what he's talking about, but it is the conclusions that are drawn from the data that is pure speculation in order to work an agenda. He has no real idea of what he is speaking, but it sounds good fitting into his family tree...literally...swinging, I suspect.

The job isn't an easy one. Like any complex organic molecule, DNA degrades over time, and bones that lie in the ground for thousands of years become badly contaminated with the DNA of bacteria and fungi. Anyone who handles the fossils can also leave human DNA behind. After probing the remains of about 60 different Neanderthals out of the 400 or so known, Pääbo and his team found only two with viable material. Moreover, he estimates, only about 6% of the genetic material his team extracts from the bones turns out to be Neanderthal DNA.

For most of us, though, it's the grand question about what it is that makes us human that renders comparative genome studies so compelling. As scientists keep reminding us, evolution is a random process in which haphazard genetic changes interact with random environmental conditions to produce an organism somehow fitter than its fellows. After 3.5 billion years of such randomness, a creature emerged that could ponder its own origins--and revel in a Mozart adagio. Within a few short years, we may finally understand precisely when and how that happened.

Labels: David C. Price