Many scientists are rejoicing today, after hearing news that the Phoenix spacecraft has succesfully located water on Mars. According to the report, "...the robot confirmed the presence of frozen water lurking below the Martian permafrost." The existence of H2O on another planet has for a long time been thought of as a key ingredient in locating the "organic-based compounds essential for simple life forms to emerge."
Aside from the question of significance regarding water being present outside our own planet, the key assertion here is that enough the presence of the right "compounds" could cause life to "emerge". The background for this is, of course, the evolutionist's assumption that living things, with all their incredible complexity from the cellular level to all the functions of vitality and reproduction, have simply "emerged" from the presence of "compounds".
I wonder if I might one day go out to my kitchen and find that various "compounds" like flour, sugar, milk, baking powder, sugar and eggs have somehow caused a cake to "emerge". Maybe after several billion years? Whew! I wouldn't want to taste it, since I've seen what happens to milk after just a few weeks. I know such an analogy is ridiculous, and confuses one process (evolutionary theory) with another (food preparation), but the absurdity of emerging cake batter is a small matter compared to the absurdity of imagining the processes of life as the end result of "emergence".
I know scientists take their method of hypothesizing answers to a given question very seriously. But what trial and experimentation has successfully demonstrated that throwing enough "compounds" into a bowl could cause life to "emerge" from the mix? Chemical reactions are not life. And theorizing it might happen if left alone for a billion years or so doesn't establish anything credible, since this can't be observed by either past or present analysis.
The real question, I believe, is: Why are evolutionary scientists so eager to prove the "emergence" of life, even with so many difficulties in proving such a theory, but so reluctant to accept the "creation" of life, for which there is not only a well-supported body of divine revelation on the subject but also an abundance of supporting evidence in the complexity of life?
Could it be that they don't really want to believe in a Creator? If they are willing to believe in God (and indeed, some scientists do believe God is responsible for the machinery of evolution), then why the talk of "emerging" life? But to refuse to attribute a world like ours, one that shows so much evidence of order and design, to a Great Designer, is certainly, as Paul put it, to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." (Romans 1:18)
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
The meaning of "hate"
There are many ways in which negative words are used as a put-down by substituting them for a more neutral word, like when a person with firm convictions is described negatively as "stubborn", or a passionate advocate for a cause is termed "obsessed."
In this way, the word "hate" has come to be used to describe the attitudes and speech of people who have strong moral convictions about certain lifestyles and behaviors. It began with the designation of abusive language spoken toward racial minorities as "hate speech", which was spoken by people like the neo-nazis. It moved from there to describing any kind of negative speech aimed at a class or group as "hate speech". And soon any criminal act against a member of a minority, in particular a racial or sexual minority, was called a "hate crime", regardless of whether that was the actual motive of the act.
I remember the first time I noticed the attempt to link this concept of hate to Christian conservatives. A bumper sticker, which played on the idea of "family values" as debated in the political realm, proclaimed "Hate is not a family value". There was a well-known connection between "family values", as promoted primarily by conservative religious groups, and a moral/spiritual opinion toward certain sexual or personal lifestyles and choices. In the view of more liberal-minded folks, this amounted to a hateful attitude, regardless of whether the disapproval was aimed at a racial group like Blacks or Hispanics or a sexual group like gays and lesbians.
Now the connection seems firmly in place, to the point that people outside the usual left-wing, anti-Christian groups are using it. Recently the McDonald's corporation made a deal with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce to essentially buy a seat on the group's board of directors in return for a large cash donation. Because of that, a conservative Christian group called for a boycott of McDonald's restaurants. In response to this reaction, a McDonald's spokesman issued a statement, saying, "...hatred has no place in our culture. That includes McDonalds, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment."
I don't believe for a minute that the Bible condones hateful speech, as in abusive, mean-spirited or threatening. Yet it must be acknowledged that some zealous advocates of biblical values have at times expressed their views in a very abusive manner, most notably the people of Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. But hateful speech is not by any means confined to the conservative religious community. I've read plenty of abusive and insulting words aimed at conservative Christians by some atheists or liberals.
But now, even the calm and dispassionate expression of disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle, or the resistance of the advancement of the political agenda of some homosexual groups, is being lumped into a general category of hateful activity. In the Canadian courts, public criticism of homosexuals can be prosecuted as a legal offense, just as one might be charged with actually doing bodily injury.
What's next? Will the advocates of this all-inclusive "love" decide that our culture has no room for criticism of any kind of lifestyle, or even unbelief? Will evangelism someday be regarded as hate speech because it implies that some people just aren't "good enough" for heaven? Hard to say yet, but churches may want to check for "bugs" in their buildings, and take care around visitors they don't recognize, in case the "hate-watchers" are among them.
In this way, the word "hate" has come to be used to describe the attitudes and speech of people who have strong moral convictions about certain lifestyles and behaviors. It began with the designation of abusive language spoken toward racial minorities as "hate speech", which was spoken by people like the neo-nazis. It moved from there to describing any kind of negative speech aimed at a class or group as "hate speech". And soon any criminal act against a member of a minority, in particular a racial or sexual minority, was called a "hate crime", regardless of whether that was the actual motive of the act.
I remember the first time I noticed the attempt to link this concept of hate to Christian conservatives. A bumper sticker, which played on the idea of "family values" as debated in the political realm, proclaimed "Hate is not a family value". There was a well-known connection between "family values", as promoted primarily by conservative religious groups, and a moral/spiritual opinion toward certain sexual or personal lifestyles and choices. In the view of more liberal-minded folks, this amounted to a hateful attitude, regardless of whether the disapproval was aimed at a racial group like Blacks or Hispanics or a sexual group like gays and lesbians.
Now the connection seems firmly in place, to the point that people outside the usual left-wing, anti-Christian groups are using it. Recently the McDonald's corporation made a deal with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce to essentially buy a seat on the group's board of directors in return for a large cash donation. Because of that, a conservative Christian group called for a boycott of McDonald's restaurants. In response to this reaction, a McDonald's spokesman issued a statement, saying, "...hatred has no place in our culture. That includes McDonalds, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment."
I don't believe for a minute that the Bible condones hateful speech, as in abusive, mean-spirited or threatening. Yet it must be acknowledged that some zealous advocates of biblical values have at times expressed their views in a very abusive manner, most notably the people of Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. But hateful speech is not by any means confined to the conservative religious community. I've read plenty of abusive and insulting words aimed at conservative Christians by some atheists or liberals.
But now, even the calm and dispassionate expression of disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle, or the resistance of the advancement of the political agenda of some homosexual groups, is being lumped into a general category of hateful activity. In the Canadian courts, public criticism of homosexuals can be prosecuted as a legal offense, just as one might be charged with actually doing bodily injury.
What's next? Will the advocates of this all-inclusive "love" decide that our culture has no room for criticism of any kind of lifestyle, or even unbelief? Will evangelism someday be regarded as hate speech because it implies that some people just aren't "good enough" for heaven? Hard to say yet, but churches may want to check for "bugs" in their buildings, and take care around visitors they don't recognize, in case the "hate-watchers" are among them.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Is the Bible unconstitutional?
Last Fall, famed legislative firebrand Ernie Chambers launched a lawsuit against God, for causing "fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like." Ernie claimed that he undertook to haul the Lord into court to make a point about frivolous lawsuits, though his sympathies for the Christian religion are known to be less than enthusiastic.
A similar toned lawsuit was filed this week, except this time the litigant is, I assume, completely serious. A Michigan man, according to press reports "is suing Zondervan Publishing and a Tennessee-based publisher, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability." The man is representing himself in this suit, since he has been refused public counsel. "The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims," the judge wrote.
This lawsuit may seem to most like some delusional daydream, the product of a mind so hostile to the Bible that he could imagine outlawing the Scriptures for offending his lifestyle. And, we may be thankful, better legal minds recognize, at least for now, there is no basis in existing law and interpretations of the consitituion to support such a suit. But could that change in the future?
Our constitution allowed for the enslavement of black Americans for nearly eighty years before the 13th Amendment officially put an end to that practice. Women had to wait until 1920 to have the constitutional right to vote. How long will it be until gays and lesbians, transexual and transgender individuals and other variations are constitutionally protected against "emotional pain" caused by a widely published and oft-quoted religious book?
The right of homosexual couples to marry seems destined to become a national right, not just in a few states. The hate crime of speaking publicly against them, as it is already so in Canada, seems likely to be written into American law some day. And if the gay-rights people get their way with the Bible, how long will it be until the denunciation of moral "sin" is not simply "old-fashioned", as it seems to be in many places, but "unconstitutional"?
The 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech is already limited by words regarded as "dangerous" (like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater), or "slanderous" (like publicly telling lies about a person). Is it really that far from where we are now to deciding that anti-gay speech, even if it's in the Bible, is just too slanderous to be legal?
A similar toned lawsuit was filed this week, except this time the litigant is, I assume, completely serious. A Michigan man, according to press reports "is suing Zondervan Publishing and a Tennessee-based publisher, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability." The man is representing himself in this suit, since he has been refused public counsel. "The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims," the judge wrote.
This lawsuit may seem to most like some delusional daydream, the product of a mind so hostile to the Bible that he could imagine outlawing the Scriptures for offending his lifestyle. And, we may be thankful, better legal minds recognize, at least for now, there is no basis in existing law and interpretations of the consitituion to support such a suit. But could that change in the future?
Our constitution allowed for the enslavement of black Americans for nearly eighty years before the 13th Amendment officially put an end to that practice. Women had to wait until 1920 to have the constitutional right to vote. How long will it be until gays and lesbians, transexual and transgender individuals and other variations are constitutionally protected against "emotional pain" caused by a widely published and oft-quoted religious book?
The right of homosexual couples to marry seems destined to become a national right, not just in a few states. The hate crime of speaking publicly against them, as it is already so in Canada, seems likely to be written into American law some day. And if the gay-rights people get their way with the Bible, how long will it be until the denunciation of moral "sin" is not simply "old-fashioned", as it seems to be in many places, but "unconstitutional"?
The 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech is already limited by words regarded as "dangerous" (like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater), or "slanderous" (like publicly telling lies about a person). Is it really that far from where we are now to deciding that anti-gay speech, even if it's in the Bible, is just too slanderous to be legal?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)