A friend on Facebook posted this article by Cathy Young on Salon.com. The article does a good job in presenting the arguments for and against men’s rights in the case of abortion. In fact, she does it much better than I probably could. So I won’t be expanding on much. But I did have some thoughts I wanted to share.

If you read this blog on the regular, you know that I am, without a doubt, a pro-life advocate. I’m a pro-lifer less on spiritual grounds and more on scientific ones. It doesn’t take long for the fetus inside of a woman to be a real, living person. Albeit, not one that can live on it’s own yet, but then again, neither is a one year old—yet, we wouldn’t terminate those when they become a logistical problem. At least not without major legal recourse.

A big deciding factor in the argument about women’s right to an abortion is that she should be free to terminate the pregnancy if she’s not ready to be a mother (financially, mentally, or otherwise). Of course, that’s not the only reason women have abortions, but I’m betting it’s the most prominent.

As a pro-lifer, I strongly believe men and women should take responsibility for their choices. If someone makes a bad financial decision and loses everything, the government doesn’t bale them out. It’s understood that sex makes children. In fact, from a totally biological standpoint, that’s really all it does. Sure, we enjoy it, but that’s kind of a nice side effect. So, in the question of whether or not abortion should be legal, I say ‘no’, siding with the government defending the child’s right to live (as it does for all the rest of its citizens), and enforcing responsibility for actions affecting other citizens (like it might in a small claims court between a local business and a scorned customer).

But that’s not really the current legal atmosphere. While I don’t agree with it, I agree even less with the illogical imbalance that exists instead.

Women are free to abort unwanted children for pretty much any reason. The most common probably being that raising a child simply isn’t viable—or simply inconvenient. After making a choice to engage sexually with another person, a woman can later decide against the lasting consequences. And the law defends that right. Men, other the hand have no such ability.

Men who choose to engage in sex have to make the choice prior to intercourse whether or not they’re ready for a child. Whether they like it or not, they may be forced to live with the consequences of their decision (financially at least).

Granted, men don’t have to carry a child to term, they may have to surrender huge portions of their income for the next 21 years. Men working in a steam-fitting factory, for example, could probably argue that the extra work necessary to make a living is just as straining as the nine difficult months of carrying a child.

What I find the most compelling about this is that, even though it doesn’t really make that much sense, the different parties know that changing the legislation could very well be the slippery slope that leads to abortions being outlawed. If men are required to take responsibility for their decisions, why then are women not?

Cathy Young puts it this way:

“…while paternal desertion is often cited as evidence of male irresponsibility and selfishness, more than a million American women every year walk away from the burdens of motherhood.”

While I strongly disagree with the legislation that allows for millions of babies to be terminated, it adds insult to injury that the legislation doesn’t even pass its own test for logic and reason.

I’ve been reading C.S. Lewis’ space trilogy. I’m on the second book right now, Perelandre. The concept of the trilogy is basically that God created, not only earth, but other worlds as well. He deals and communicates with each of them in unique ways, although always in line with his character.

Today, I was thinking about what we know of the universe, and more existentially, what we know about existence—what we know about knowing things, even. And it occurred to me that it seems borderline insulting, even arrogant, to assume that we would be the end of God’s creation. That he would have retired after creating us.

We believe that God is all powerful. The he is sovereign. That he’s creative. But most importantly, that he’s passionately devoted to bringing glory to his name. Well, what great human artist do you know of that only painted one thing and stopped?

I mean, think about it, God has already created at least once before creating us: angels. Who’s to say there weren’t other beings created before us—maybe in existences other than our own. I don’t know.

But it does seem to me, that if God has the character that we believe he does—that he’s revealed to us—it would more probable that his creative impulses wouldn’t be spent on us. Maybe nowhere in our universe or realm of existence, but it seems likely to me that God would have more than one egg and more than one basket, that he would go on creating and gleaning glory from all of it.

Of course, as to our own interaction with God, this is all pretty inconsequential. If God has continued to create capacities other than our own, I don’t really need to know about it. I may never actually have an answer. But it sure is interesting to consider.

Albert Mohler (in his recent book Atheism Remix), while discussing Alister McGrath’s rebuttal to Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, made one of the most interesting points. Perhaps not a new point. But in a realm where Richard Dawkins seems to be considered reasonable, it really is quite a thought provoking statement.

He writes:

“God is not ‘improbable’ in any sense greater than humanity itself is improbably on Dawkins’ own terms—for Dawkins himself makes the point that the emergence of humanity is itself highly improbably.”

Dang. That’s a pretty stellar point.

Okay, so the existence of God is improbable. But is my existence really any more probable than his? I don’t really think so.

I thought this link would suffice for today’s post. I won’t tell you why. But, I will say this. If they finally figure it out, I’ll make this post something else .

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/Timetraveltheoryx.htm

Enjoy!

I think it might be that we take the ability to exist for granted. Can we really be blamed for that? We’ve been doing it, indiscriminately since we were born. If there’s one thing that’s pretty thoroughly ingrained in us it’s that we exist. Barring a few exceptions, there aren’t many places on earth that we won’t continue to exist. Our atmosphere is perfectly suited for us. We breath in and out and it keeps us alive. Even if we fall into a nasty or dangerous situation, there is the plain and simple confidence, that if no one kills us and if our organs keep working, we’ll live. It’s fascinating actually. It’s what causes people to run from dangerous situations; hope that if no one kills us, we’ll still be living. If we don’t crash the car, we won’t die. If we take our medications, and go to the doctor, our life will go on. The bear minimum is taken for granted, but the bear minimum isn’t nothing. It’s still something.

I watched a documentary on the Discovery Channel this evening entitled When We Left Earth. It’s about the development of the space program and NASA. But what I kept thinking about was the complete and total despair of space. Unlike earth, space holds no guarantees. If a person were left to space, existence could no longer be taken for granted; no matter how well the person’s body actually works or the absence of immediate dangers, space simple does not sustain life.

It’s fascinating to me that the thing perhaps most taken for granted by people, is also perhaps the greatest gift from God. The simple ability to not die. Sort of brings some new life to that weird Matt Redman song, Breathing the Breath.

Lord, we’re breathing the breath
That You gave us to breath
To worship You, to worship You
And we’re singing these songs
With the very same breath
To worship You, to worship You

A few things before I get started. I’ve disabled comments on this post. Not for fear of disagreement, but because the general sway of critics on this topic is to to respond with no first hand knowledge of the book in discussion here. My suggestion to all will be that they pick up this book and read it, but that is especially my suggestion to you who vehemently disagree with my praise of this book. Please read the book before emailing me with criticisms.

I recently finished Phillip E. Johnson’s Darwin on Trial. And I will state outright, that this book should be read by many who accept Darwinian evolution simply on the bases that it is “widely accepted” or from the limited exposure we have received in grade school.

Simply for his skepticism, most serious supporters of Darwinism will chalk Johnson off as a creationist fundamentalist bent on mind control, without giving very much heed to his own testimony. Johnson is a “philosophical theist and a Christian. [He believes] that a God exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but who might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process instead.” Through the rest of his text, Johnson makes little reference to intelligent design of any kind, except where discussing the scientific communities own actions. However, he makes no argument for another theory at all, simply a criticism of the existing one.

In the conclusion of his first chapter, Johnson describes himself as “not a scientist,” he states, “but an academic lawyer by profession, with a specialty in analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments.” This is the skill most clearly employed through the course of his book. Beginning with a linguistic discussion of the word “science” and what exactly it means according to various official statements. Johnson makes a compelling argument about the legal setting of scientific terms which reveal a bias that actually limits scientific integrity more than supporting it.

Johnson doesn’t shy away from the very specific discussion of the evidence supporting Darwinism. He spends about the first half of his book discussing natural selection, fossil records, mutations, molecular evidence and more, peppered throughout. But the other half of the book begins a critique of the scientific community at large; with Darwinism as a centerpiece.

Some of Johnson’s most compelling discussion involves the difference between empirical science and philosophical science—Darwinism falls largely in the latter. However, we have a difference here that the general public knows nothing about and because of philosophical reasoning, shouldn’t know anything about.

Johnson writes clearly and effectively and so that everyone can understand. The book is divided into 154 pages and twelve chapters. That leaves each chapter short enough that you don’t need a great commitment to the book to work through it. Johnson has a manner of writing that, although he is discussion relatively dry material, we never find ourselves especially bored.

Most Americans view the scientific community remembering the scientific method from back in grade school. Remember? Problem, research, hypothesis, experimentation, hypothesis test, analysis, conclusions. This is not big science; it is sometimes, but not all the time, but we don’t see the difference—it all gets labeled science. Perhaps the populous shouldn’t rely so heavily on the science community for its truth.

Because the book speaks clearly for itself, and for fear of misrepresenting it, I’ve intentionally stayed away from Johnson’s specific critiques of the science community and of Darwinism. I recommend this book to all. It’s easy to read, easy to understand, and affordably priced.

Reading in Philip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial today, he went over some pretty interesting insights. This is unconventional for me, but I’d like to share an extended, but ultimately brief segment of Johnson’s text from chapter two discussing natural selection. Johnson makes an interesting point. In a field which places limits on the plausibility of its options, they may have chosen the only option—however weak at some points its answers may become.

Natural Selection as a Philosophical Necessity

“The National Academy of Sciences told the Supreme Court that the most basic characteristic of science is “reliance upon the naturalistic explanations,” as opposed to “supernatural means inaccessible to human understanding.” In the latter, unacceptable category contemporary scientists place not only God, but also any non-material vital force that supposedly drives evolution in the direction of greater complexity, consciousness, or whatever. If science is to have any explanation for biological complexity at all it has to make do with what is left when the unacceptable has been excluded. Natural selection is the best of the remaining alternatives, probably the only alternative.

In this situation some may decide that Darwinism simply must be true, and for such persons the purpose of any further investigation will be merely to explain how natural selection works and to solve the mysteries created by apparent anomalies. For them there is no need to test the theory itself, for there is no respectable alternative to test it against. Any persons who say the theory itself is inadequately supported can be vanquished by the question “Darwin’s Bulldog” T.H. Huxley used to ask the doubters in Darwin’s time: What is your alternative?

I do not think that many scientists would be comfortable accepting Darwinism solely as a philosophical principle, without seeking to find at least some empirical evidence that it is true. But there is an important difference between going to the empirical evidence to test a doubtful theory against some plausible alternative, and going to test the evidence to look for confirmation of the only theory that one is willing to tolerate. We have already seen that the distinguished scientists have accepted uncritically the questionable analogy between natural and artificial selection, and that they often been undisturbed by the fallacies of the “tautology” and “deductive logic” formulations. Such illogic survived and reproduced itself for the same reason that an apparently incompetent species sometimes avoids extinction; there was no effective competition in its ecological niche.”