Dogbert and the Theory of Evolution

(HT: Uncommon Design)

Unrepented Christianity

 

(HT: Lumel’s Weblog)

Science No Longer Necessary to Evolution

 

Evolution explained by abandoning science.

 

Quote:

Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi­verse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non­religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.

Be Ready

Answer to Teen Pregnancy: Broadcast More Realistic Depictions of Sex

File this under example of insanity:

ScienceDaily (Nov. 3, 2008) — Adolescents who have high levels of exposure to television programs that contain sexual content are twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy over the following three years as their peers who watch few such shows, according to a new RAND Corporation study.

The study, published in the November edition of the journal Pediatrics, is the first to establish a link between teenagers’ exposure to sexual content on TV and either pregnancies among girls or responsibility for pregnancies among boys.

"Adolescents receive a considerable amount of information about sex through television and that programming typically does not highlight the risks and responsibilities of sex," said Anita Chandra, the study’s lead author and a behavioral scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "Our findings suggest that television may play a significant role in the high rates of teenage pregnancy in the United States."

Researchers from RAND Health say that exposure to sex on television may influence teen pregnancy by creating the perception that there is little risk to engaging in sex without using contraceptives and accelerating the initiation of sexual intercourse.

"The amount of sexual content on television has doubled in recent years, and there is little representation of safer sex practices in those portrayals," Chandra said. "While some progress has been made, teenagers who watch television are still going to find little information about the consequences of unprotected sexual practices among the many portrayals promoting sex."

She said that the findings hold implications for broadcasters, parents and health care providers.

Broadcasters should be encouraged to include more realistic depictions of sex in scripts and to portray consequences such as pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Parents should consider limiting their children’s access to programming with sexual content and spending more time watching programs with their children so they can explain the consequences of sex. Pediatricians should ask adolescents about their media use and discuss with them both contraception and the consequences that may accompany sexual activity.

Let’s briefly recap this–

Problem statement:

Adolescents who have high levels of exposure to television programs that contain sexual content are twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy over the following three years as their peers who watch few such shows.

Remedy:

1. Broadcasters should have more realistic depictions of sex

2. Parents should limit viewing (not eliminate but limit) the access of children to pornographic content

3. Parents should validate the viewing of pornography by watching it with their children

4. Pediatricians should remind children about the pornographic content of programs they view and then provide children with contraception.

The non-insane remedy is actually found in the problem statement – read it again if you missed it the first time. I’d love to get my hands on the underlying data of that study, the probability is high that the children who watch few such shows also come from families with a strong Christian background.

Kirk Cameron – Still a Growing Pain (for some)

Q I loved Kirk Cameron on TV’s Growing Pains, but now he just does Christian-themed movies. Is he serious about his faith? —Barbara M., Cincinnati, Ohio

A Very. Cameron, 38, is a partner in an evangelical ministry and is unapologetic about doing movies like his recent hit Fireproof. “I’ve been in cheesy movies,” he admits, “but an inspirational message doesn’t make a movie cheesy—not if it’s well done.” What some reporters found less than inspirational was Kirk handing out fake money bearing a warning to sinners while he publicized Fireproof. (Q&A from the Oct 26, 2008 issue of Parade Magazine, emphasis added)

Imagine that.

A committed and “unapologetic” Christian who is also “a partner in an evangelical ministry” handing out tracts about sin and judgment while publicizing a movie with a Christian message. I guess the reporters would have been more inspired if Kirk had actually preached a sermon after the movie. Oh, wait, he did that too.

Go figure.

Confident Evangelism

We are supposed to proclaim the Gospel in all the world. It is not an option but a command. Sharing the faith is not just the job of ordained ministers but an obligation of every Christian. In this two part audio series Don Green explains why every Christian has the freedom and competence to share the Gospel confidently with the lost.

Confident Evangelism, Part 1

Confident Evangelism, Part 2

God’s Word is God’s Word

 

“My Friend, God’s Word is God’s Word; this point does not require much haggling!”

(Martin Luther)

Red Letter Christians Aren’t

Who first suggested the label (Red Letter Christian)? A secular Jewish Country-and-Western disc jockey in Nashville, Tennessee. During a radio interview he was conducting with Jim Wallis, he happened to say, “So, you’re one of those Red-Letter Christians–you know–who’s really into those verses in the New Testament that are in red letters!”

Jim answered, “That’s right!” And with that answer, he spoke for all of us. By calling ourselves Red-Letter Christians, we are alluding to the fact that in several versions of the New Testament, the words of Jesus are printed in red. In adopting this name, we are saying that we are committed to living out the things that He said. Of course, the message in those red-lettered verses is radical, to say the least. If you don’t believe me, read Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

(From What’s a ‘Red Letter Christian’? emphasis added)

One would think that a group of professing Christians who call themselves ‘Red Letter Christians’ and who claim to be committed to living out the things that Jesus actually said would have a focus on those words that are printed in red letters from the Bible. But if Sojourners is an example, the actual words of Christ seem to have very little importance to RLCs. Certainly the RLC web log, God’s Politics, lacks a focus on His word. Sure, there are a lot of comments, articles, and posts with an interpretation (and sometimes and interpretation of an interpretation) about what Jesus said…but His actual words are noticeably absent. Even Verse and Voice lacks reference to  the words of Jesus. If Red Letter Christians are “committed to living out the things that He said” shouldn’t they be able to quote what Jesus said?

It may just be me but it looks like Red Letter Christians aren’t at all red letter Christians.

The Election Aftermath Roundup

Today was the should’ve-would’ve-could’ve time for the pajama media political pundits: those on the left cheered while those on the right, well, not so much. Their aftermath was as it should be I suppose. Here’s my roundup of the election aftermath:

The Best:

1. Between Two Worlds: Thabiti Anyabwile: "The Day After"

2. Voddie Baucham Ministries: Is It Over?

3. Albert Mohler: America Has Chosen a President

The Most Disappointing:

I’m a big fan of the Slice Of Laodicea blog but this post was disappointing. Maybe it’s just me but I think foreign leaders have an obligation to make a statement about the election of a new American President. It may be noteworthy if they did not and it would probably be newsworthy if a foreign leader made an insulting comment. But a blog with a “News and commentary on the contemporary church” tag line probably (in my humble opinion) shouldn’t cherry pick those comments. Shame on you Slice.

Funniest:

From The Onion: Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are