:Reasonable Force

David W. Boles over at Urban Semiotic raises the oft-decried spectre of the wire-hanger abortion at the prospect of the confirmation of purportedly constructionist nominee to the Supreme Court, John Roberts. I responded on his comment thread (in a moderation queue as of this posting) and decided to post my thoughts unedited (though I’ve added a few links). Though I’m obviously on the other side of this critical issue, I appreciate David’s thoughtful style and his courtesy in responding to all of his visitors.

David, with all due respect, the horror of back alley abortions was largely a media creation based on bogus numbers spoon-fed to them by pro-abortion advocates. Granted, if you happen to know one of the few legitimate cases, it has more emotional impact. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a lie was greatly responsible for shaping cultural attitudes toward legalization. The political cartoon you cite is a shameful example of fear-mongering for political purpose with no basis in fact.

Further, while I would never argue that life is easy or fair for people born into disadvantaged circumstances I fail to see how the compassionate solution is to offer scars that never heal. You say that abstinence “doesn’t work;” I presume you mean that it isn’t applied in the populations that need it most or are poorest equipped to deal with additional mouths to feed?

That it works to prevent unwanted pregnancies is unquestionable. So, rather than throwing up our hands and conceding that some groups can never be taught self-respect or self-control, perhaps we should frankly examine whether an effort has ever been undertaken to impart those virtues, without simultaneously offering the easy path of unrestrained “protected” sex along with the assumption that they’re going to do that anyway.

I’m not accusing you, by the way, of having the above-stated attitude toward any group, though I do believe your dismissal of abstinence education is tantamount to such a position.

Again, I recognize that inner-city conditions can be horrific and that there are no silver bullet solutions to the day-to-day situations faced by their residents. I don’t believe, however, that the abortion debate has ever been about compassion for women there or anywhere.

I will not, however, try to make the argument that all women can control the circumstances under which they might become pregnant. I agree with one previous commenter that our world is far from ideal.

The problem is that we attempt to correct one injustice with an even greater one when we suggest that preventing a child from being born is to salvage a woman’s sovereignty over her life and body.

It was not the difficulties faced by women in unfortunate circumstances that prompted the legalization of abortion. It was that we crossed a line somewhere in the pursuit of unfettered liberty and began to perceive the unthinkable as first unfortunate but understandable, then reasonable, and finally, horrifyingly, natural.

Sorry for the length, David. I would just like to make two more points.

First, have you and the other pro-choice advocates here considered how many women are forced to exercise their “right to chose” by fathers, husbands, or boyfriends? No, I don’t have numbers on that and doubt they could be accurately assessed, but anecdotal evidence leads me to conclude that it’s not a low number.

Point being, the same men that can assert their will over the women’s bodies in getting them pregnant can assert their will via the clinic. All you’ve done is give irresponsible men a legal way to avoid child support.

Second, and parenthetically, in response to Carla (comment#3), who questioned the relevance of Sanger’s acquaintance with Hitler’s Merry Band of Eugenicists (raised in comment#1), I respectfully submit that it is absolutely relevant if it sheds light on Sanger’s motivations for advocating legal birth control and abortion. Wikipedia’s entry on her contains a plethora of quotes near the bottom that leave little doubt that she shared some of the philosophies prized in Hitlerian medicine.

UPDATE: David’s response can be read here. David has graciously provided a classic example of the attempt to invalidate opposing views when they are voiced by folks with sincerely held religious convictions. To his credit, he did post my initial response to his article and has been unfailingly courteous.

Two things that amused me:
First, his initial greeting to me, “SCPanther – I was waiting for you to make an appearance here. You are BlestWithSon’s evangelical brother, correct?”

Does anyone else get the mental image of Vader stepping from the shadows with an ignited lightsabre? Note that I’m her evangelical brother; an early preview of what David views as an exposé.

The second funny thing was that David categorizes this site as a “Pro-Life ministry,” in a misguided effort to further cast aspersions on my credibility. Granted, this site would be more worthy if it were a directed ministry in that fashion but, as is apparent to any casual observer, right now it’s just one guy’s sporadically posted opinions on many different subjects. I didn’t bother disavowing his characterization because anyone who visits will know better, and because I wouldn’t have been ashamed of it if it had been true.

My concluding comment to David follows:

David: I do not believe you [are] here to have a genuine intellectual discussion about the issue raised in my post and the following comments.

I’m sorry you feel that way, David. I believe all of my comments were relevant to your post and the comments here, and would have hoped that you might deal with the issues rather than ruling me ineligible for “intellectual discussion” by virtue of the faith that helps to shape my beliefs.

Nevertheless, I certainly acknowledge your right to do whatever you will with your site and the discussions therein.

Thank you for displaying my comment and for your sentiments. I likewise bear no ill feelings toward you and pray God’s rich blessings on you and the others who have commented here.

9 Comments

Responding to my previous post, a friend and brother named Keith made the following comment:

I have a kind of dualistic approach toward cosmology. I believe in the whole hog literal six days and such, but I also don’t think the physical evidence we have right now points to it. I think if scientists follow the evidence where it most naturally (naturalistically?) leads, I have faith that science will eventually self-correct itself to correspond to scripture. I believe scientists really are trying to find the truth, and the smartest scientist Christians that I know firmly believe in evolution and an old Earth, so I don’t think evolution can be explained away by saying that scientists want to corrupt the world’s youth or whatever.

My response to that grew a bit lengthy so I decided to post most of it as a new post.

I’ve spoken about the self-correcting aspect of science before, and how examples can readily be found in which the peer-review process acts to stifle views that run contra to the prevailing paradigm. But, of course, science involves a constant process of investigation and discovery and it does indeed correct itself frequently. The limitation on that mechanism, however, is that scientists can only correct within the bounds of what they believe is reasonable.

I would agree with Keith that it is unreasonable to presume that naturalistic scientists are engaged in a conspiracy of willful deception in an attempt to convert all of our children to secular humanism. To the extent that such conversion attempts are underway it is not with the intent to deceive, but out of a desire to enlighten. There’s no malicious intent because they truly believe what they teach. And, like Keith, I believe the vast majority of them truly want to understand the hows and whys of their areas of study.

Of course, when we say that most of them are “trying to find the truth” we must speak on two levels. If they are unregenerate then they may be trying to ascertain the truth of the physical world while having subconsciously rejected the Truth, personified in Christ, who created all things and holds all things together. They are therefore crippled in their perception and their reasoning. They are able to recognize patterns that lead to a formalization of physical laws, but they are unable to make that leap from the law to the lawgiver.

Evolution is demonstrative of how scientific observation without the undergirding of well-founded faith can lead to conclusions that are simply bizarre. One sees various species and notes similarities between them. One also notes that, within species, variations are formed in response to environmental pressures. One can only make the colossal leap from these observations to the idea of macroevolution apart from the theological foundation of Creation of distinct types of creatures by a personal, purposeful God.

The modern scientist would view that as an example of science freeing itself from the constraints of an outmoded belief system in order to follow the evidence where it leads.

The orthodox theologian, on the other hand, views it as science going badly astray by tearing itself away from a necessary mooring to reality.

What, then, of all the really smart Christian scientists (not to be confused with Christian Scientists) who also hold to evolutionary theory and an old earth? Well, I’ve addressed in my last post how I think the earth itself might be old, possibly allowing for some ancient geological ages. Unfortunately, that doesn’t do anything to bring Genesis in line with the consensus views on biology, astonomy, or a host of other disciplines. Quite simply, I think the foundations upon which these Christians obtained their scientific education were faulty. I think they’ve allowed views which were shaped by men with presuppositions of naturalism to supplant their trust and faith in the Bible.

One of the most difficult truths I’ve had to come to grips with is that, for virtually any position, you can find very intelligent people who subscribe to it. Theology is rife with examples, certainly, of men of equivalent intellect staking out diametrically opposed positions and defending them from Scripture with equal persuasiveness. Similarly, while many are in the camp Keith describes above, there are highly intelligent Christian scientists who reject the predominant views on evolution and, though undoubtedly fewer, ancient ages.

The institution of science can correct itself, but only within the philosophical boundaries imposed by the individuals who guide it. As regards the individuals who practice science, some have had, or will have, their eyes opened by the beauty of the design that they perceive. Some already know the Designer. For them, science can be a pursuit of truth that ultimately will indeed align harmoniously with correctly interpreted Scripture. Others will only ever see a purposeless universe careening inevitably toward a meaningless end because anything else would force them to deal with a God they prefer, at some level, to avoid. The trick for the former is knowing when their assumptions have been shaped by the unbelief of the latter.

4 Comments

blestwithsons, my übertalented sister, is excited about the Creation Museum being built in northern Kentucky by Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis organization. Her post is enthusiastic about the museum, but critical of some aspects of the FoxNews article that mentions it. Among her objections is the choice of a pastor in nearby Cincinnati who denounces AiG’s young-Earth creationism as “silly.”

Says blest, “Hmmm. Of all the pastors available in the country, or at least in Kentucky or Ohio, the reporter chose a Reverend from the United Church of Christ, which is not exactly known for their faithful handling of the scriptures.”

That’s certainly true. My opinion is that Christians of his stripe are simply afraid of being embarrassed in the eyes of the world by their “simpler” brethren.

That, in itself, isn’t so hard to understand. After all, I’ve been known to cringe myself when some Bible-believing brothers or sisters call in to radio shows and cast reasoned arguments to the wind as they grossly distort or misapply the Scriptures in which they, to their credit, place their trust.

The difference is that this pastor and countless others are firmly nestled into their creche as the matrix program provides them an illusion of reality that they’ve not allowed Scripture to peel back for them. They, many of them anyway, honestly believe that the evolutionary pronouncements of Science are founded in objective, empirical, reproducible evidence.

They haven’t grasped, apparently, that the conclusions of Evolutionary science are necessitated by the naturalistic presuppositions with which their investigations begin.

All that said, here is my view (at this point anyway) on Genesis and length of days. First, I utterly reject the premise of macro-evolution; that all living things are the process of chance mutation and natural selection, gradually causing one species to change to another, beginning with so-called “simple” organisms and culminating with humanity in our present time, until another leap produces some new type of humanity. I believe all types of creatures were created by God and that their genetic codes contain the information that has allowed their original progenitors to variate within their species in adaptation to various environmental conditions.

Second, I have absolutely no problem with the idea that God can do this in six days or six hours. I freely admit that I don’t know the ins and outs of how scientists derive their numbers for ages, but since I know that any method that produced a young-earth age would be dismissed out of hand I’m not too troubled by that.

Third, I do believe that there is some legitimate wiggle room in the language of Genesis that could allow for an age of the universe and/or the earth itself much older than humanity, and possibly even for day lengths that don’t correspond to our 24-hour cycles, at least for the first two days.

The first detail in the account that leads me to keep an open mind is the fact that the six days of creation seem to begin with the heavens and earth already in place. It could be argued that the very first verse stating that “God created the heavens and the earth” is meant to be included in the first day. I don’t have a problem with that view, but I don’t necessarily think it’s unfaithful to Scripture to see it as a starting point. That leaves the prospect of any conceivable amount of time prior to God saying “Let there be light.”

Which brings me to the second detail; why are our days twenty-four hours long? Because that’s how long it takes the earth to rotate on its axis creating the visual effects of sunrise and sunset as that celestial body appears to pass across the sky. But while God created light, separating it from darkness and establishing the concepts of day and night, He hadn’t yet created the sun. In fact, God did not create the sun until the fourth day when He established it along with the moon and all of the other heavenly bodies to give light on the earth.

Where did the light come from prior to the advent of the sun? I have no idea. Perhaps it came somehow from the effect of an expanding universe. Regardless, I have to consider the possibility that at least the three days prior to the creation of the sun could have been of some duration other than the standard day that we know.

I agree with blest that attempts to reconcile naturalistic evolutionary science with Scripture are misguided at best, so if I haven’t made it clear, that’s not what I’m trying to do here. I’m just giving my reasons for not slamming the door on the possibility of an older universe than most young-earth creationist views allow for.

4 Comments

Russian astrologer Marina Bai claims in a lawsuit that, by slamming a probe into comet Tempel 1, NASA has altered her destiny.

It seems that prior to the impact Ms. Bai’s fate was that only a few people in her community would know what a nut she is. Clearly the timestream has now taken a divergent path.

2 Comments

Joseph Farah, in his WorldNet Daily column, condems Billy Graham’s public affirmation of Bill and Hillary Clinton during what may be his last crusade.

Farah does this in a straightforward, brother-to-brother manner. He is clearly regretful at having to chastise Rev. Graham, but resolute that it must be done.

The Clintons are “a great couple,” you said. “I told an audience that I felt when he left the presidency he should be an evangelist because he has all the gifts and he’d leave his wife to run the country,” you continued.

I’ve got news for you, Rev. Graham: Bill Clinton is already an evangelist. But it’s not for the Gospel you preach. He is an evangelist for moral relativism, for the great sin of pride, for abortion on demand, for adultery, for sexual perversion, for abuse of power.

You and the Clintons are, as the Apostle Paul explained it, “unequally yoked.” You should have no part of them. You should rebuke them the way Mother Teresa did when she got the chance. Darkness has no place with the light.

Billy Graham has been used by God to bring thousands into the Kingdom of Heaven, there can be little doubt. His, for better or worse, has been the face of evangelical Christianity, and for the most part few would be troubled by that.

That’s why his inexplicable blindness in associating himself with this self-serving, power-hungry couple is so disappointing. He has essentially allowed his ministry to be used in the Democratic party’s attempt to drain evangelical votes from the right in next election.

God bless Reverend Graham for all that he has done for the Kingdom. But I pray, with Joseph Farah, that he will recognize his error in this instance and publicly recant his endorsement of one of the most morally reprobate couples in American public life.

4 Comments