January 31, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

My wife just got a fund appeal letter from Planned Parenthood (PP). Perhaps
one came to your house, too. As a sociologist I am always fascinated to read how
various groups portray themselves and their opponents. In this case, PP refers
to their facilities as "health centers" and they posit that their opponents,
referred to in the letter as "anti-choice agitators" and "anti-choice hate
groups," want to stop them from "delivering education and essential health care
services." The groups in question promote abstinence-only sex education and the
reduction, if not total elimination of abortion clinics. I find on the web that
these organizations (calling themselves "pro-life," not "anti-choice") do object
to abortion on demand, but I find no where that they are against testing for
disease or referral to treatment. I’m yet to figure out who it is that they are
supposed to hate. And I personally don’t see how a woman is
"healthier" after an abortion than before, and may be the other way around. That
being the case, I don’t see that anti-abortion advocates can legitimately be
accused of wanting to shut down "health centers," unless the only "health
service" provided ends in an abortion. And if that’s the case, is "health
centers" the best phrase to describe them? If they provide other health
services, then why would they be shut down at the elimination of only one of
their "services?"

In about the middle of page 3 of their letter PP points out
that "the U.S. government has poured more than $1 billion in federal funding
over the past decade into these [abstinence only] programs." Three paragraphs
later PP acknowledges in a subordinate prepositional phrase that there has been
a "recent decline in teen pregnancy rates," but they fail to tie these two facts
together. I also note at the top of the same page that PP has been "providing
women with health care for more than 90 years." Doing a little math, I would say
that the past decade of abstinence-only teaching is more likely to be related to
the decline in pregnancies than the 90 years of PP services.

And speaking of math, on the same page I find the
statement, "Approximately 750,000 U.S. teens will become pregnant this year, and
nearly four million of them will contract a sexually transmitted infection."
Good grammar and clear communication would dictate that compared numbers all be
written in the same format. Grammar also dictates that the "them" in the second
clause further explains the "750,000 U.S. teens" in the first clause. If they
had considered these rules, they may have caught their mistake: PP says
4,000,000 of the 750,000 will catch diseases. The intended communication is
alarming, sad, and should not be taken lightly; but the grammar error suggests
just one more reason care should be taken in reading the overall letter.

In the letter PP posits that they offer "comprehensive,
medically accurate sexuality education that discusses both contraception and
abstinence." This is not what I find on their website.  I made reference to
this problem in my blog on

November 18, 2006, but looking at the PP website, I think it needs a little
more detail. The problem is behavioral license that results from issuing condoms
and a  false sense of security. I must illustrate:  On their
homepage is a link entitled, "STDs,
HIV & Safer Sex." There we read at the top of the page, "All plants and
animals that reproduce sexually develop sexually transmitted infections (STIs)."
The paragraph suggests that it’s not only normal, but "everybody’s doing it." It
encourages girls and women to discuss their sexual behavior with their
clinician. There is no mention of parents. There is no consideration that the
reader may be grappling with a behavioral choice before the fact.

Ah, in the left column are the words, "Preventing STIs/STDs." Perhaps there is
help with my decision here. Yes, that page is
titled "Preventing STI’s/STDs," but the immediate line under it is "Enjoying
Sex." Then, "When we decide to have sex, we want it to be satisfying — whether
we are women, men, intersex or transgender, married or single, young or old,
straight, lesbian, gay, or bisexual. " (Now I know why their publicity says
"sexuality education" instead of "sex education." I have only been in this
website about three minutes, and I’ve already been introduced to words that
aren’t even in my spell check.) "Enjoying your sexuality is a normal, natural
part of life." (Now I’m told that all these behaviors are "normal" and
"natural.") "Most of us have taken risks when we have had sex.." (There is no
consideration that the reader may not have had sex and might consider that
normal.)

Next they have a nice list of problems that can come with
sexually transmitted diseases. Good. But then a few lines down I read,
"Exploring safer sex can make sex more satisfying." I don’t see the abstinence
consideration here. Is abstinence anywhere in this website? To the left I see
specific diseases. Let’s try HPV, since it is arguably the most common STD, and
there is little evidence that condoms have significant preventative affect. Most
of the information presented by PP here can be directly found in the information
provided by the

Center for Disease Control, but edited and brought down a notch. I found no
misrepresentation, just reorganization. Finally,
the 570th word on this page is "abstinence!"..along with four other ways to
"reduce your risk." No comment on their relative effectiveness.
I won’t be responding to their fund appeal.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics, Science and faith | No Comments »

January 23, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Yesterday afternoon I had the opportunity to be on a press
release conference call with Ben Stein, Walt Ruloff, president of Premise Media, and Paul Lauer,
founder and President of Motive Marketing, as they
discussed the movie Expelled, opening in April of 2008. Paul lead the discussion, feeding
questions to Ben and Walt. Apparently Walt first approached Ben about the idea,
and after looking into the issue, Ben realized that there were many shortfalls
in the theory of evolution that somehow were not coming to light. A little more
investigation, and he concluded that the information was indeed suppressed. As
for Walt, his background is computer technology. He spoke of how rapidly this
science has advanced in the last few decades, and he attributes this to the fact
that "everything can be questioned," and therefore tested, alternatives
explored, and new discoveries made. He then contrasted this with biological
science, where questions are only allowed if they conform with the existing
paradigm–Darwinian evolution. Yes, many discoveries have been made in biology
in recent decades, but not because the theory of evolution compels them. And
compared with computer technology, where there is no such baggage, biological
advance is a snail’s pace. In their research they have found scientists who were denied
grants by NIH and NSF simply because they suggested empirical investigation of
alternatives to naturalism. Their conclusion is that the constraints are not
scientific but political, and therefore the fix must be political–a law
protecting scientists from scientists. They fell short of mentioning the Academic Freedom Act,
but the movie will obviously set the stage.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics, Science and faith | 3 Comments »

January 19, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

One of the arguments I hear against allowing God in science
is that the Gap theory kills scientific investigation. The Gap theory they are
referring to is, "If we just say God did it, then there is no further reason to
investigate." This sentiment only makes sense to a person who is not motivated
by faith in God. The reality is that science as we know it is the product of
Christendom. Just as Christians once owned slaves as the world did, Christians
once believed in many superstitions.  For thousands of years people around
the world have believed superstitions because they believed that the "gods" were
whimsical and competitive, with natures hardly more honorable than our own. But
the Judeo-Christian God is not that way. He is understood to be orderly,
logical, purposive, and powerful enough to reflect that nature in all He has
made. That is why Christendom would not accept that the world around us was
incomprehensible. That is why it was Christendom that made alchemy into
chemistry. That is why it was Christendom that made astrology into astronomy.
That is why Johannes Kepler would not give up on discovering the mathematics of our
solar system. Kepler and many other founders of modern science believed in the God of John 1:1, where it says, “In the Beginning was the Word.” The Greek word used there in the original is not the only Greek option for “word,” it is LOGOS–the root of our English word “logic.” So read that verse, “In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God.” It says that the Judeo-Christian God is the logic behind the universe and all that we see. I just recently discovered the beautiful website of a Christian amateur astronomer, motivated by faith in that God to pursue his hobby. Check it out. Is it not motivational to think that when you look into a telescope that
you are looking into the face of God?

Posted in Culture & society, History, Science and faith | No Comments »

January 14, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

If you have not already heard about Ben Stine’s movie, Expelled, then check it out.
It will hit theaters in February around Darwin’s birthday, and the subject is
academic freedom, particularly as it pertains to suppression of problems with Darwinism. At the website, they have created a link for people to post their own stories of
being denied academic freedom, and I recommend it as good reading. My video is posted
there, but the text stories are well worth the read. Some are more technical than others, but
they make the point: The problem of academic freedom on the issue of Darwinism
is not isolated and it is not rare. Do a Google search on "Ben Stine" or
"Expelled the Movie" and see how much flack he is getting for it. It is an
indication that he is stepping on a lot of toes. It is an indication that the
suppression is real. As my Daddy used to say, "If you don’t have any enemies,
you must not be doing anything."

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »

January 6, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

George W. Bush has been criticized for letting his faith interfere with his judgment as president. Everyone lives out their faith in daily life, not just George W. Bush. It’s just a matter of what their faith is. Those who believe one should not allow their faith to affect their daily lives simply live out their faith that there is no God that affects daily life.. and that affects their daily life.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics | 1 Comment »