Many people have no idea that the American Psychiatric Association’s decision to say that transgender people are normal was not based on a scientific conclusion. It was simply done by fiat.
For several years, there were news reports that a gay gene had been found. Of course that was a news reporter’s understanding of scientific findings. They typically understand and report science incorrectly. No such gene has ever been found. What we did discover was that, if you say something often enough, many people will believe it whether there’s any evidence or not.
A person may decide that homosexuality and transgender’s is normal, but it is not based on any scientific evidence. It would just simply be a preference
This article tells some of the story of how that decision was made. It was nothing more than a vote.
Stephen Hawkins extreme prediction of the earth becoming like Venus is interesting. Scientists have already indicated that this is not what is expected to happen if CO2 continues to climb. First, there is the scientism worldview that believes that anything that someone of science says must be true. That is a naïve worldview because science is sometimes wrong, and scientists sometimes have nonscientific bones to chew. For instance, scientist sometimes just want money for their pet projects. And they may exaggerate just to get funding. Not to say that all of them do, but it is a motivation for some.
Second, here’s the question of Hawkins reason for making such an extreme prediction. Most of us hold him in high regard simply because of his credentials. Recently, Hawkins changed his prediction that we have thousand years before the extinction of mankind to a new prediction that we only have 100 years. He gave no scientific basis for that, he simply made a prediction. Why 1000 years? Why 100 years? That is incredible rounding . Why not 1236? Why not 73? It makes you wonder if he’s just simply shooting from the hip based on a feeling he has. That’s not science.
For those of you who are unaware of the effects of renewable energy, this story talks about something that actually has happened in California. It doesn’t matter if you are a climate alarmist for climate skeptic, this story is important because it will affect our thinking about renewable energy for a long time. I typically don’t post articles about climate change, but this definitely will affect worldviews.
California is heavily invested in renewable energy. So much so, that they sometimes produce too much energy. Traditional energy sources such as coal or natural gas produce a steady stream of constant energy. Renewable energy fluctuates and goes up and down over time. Many people want to let the renewables generate as much energy as possible, but it is difficult to predict when that will happen. And it is difficult to scale up or scale back traditional energy sources. It is difficult to get them started or bring them down quickly. As a result, renewables will often either overproduce or underproduce.
If you overproduced energy, you could be in danger of damaging your electrical infrastructure. So some utilities will try to send the energy to other states. That is what California did several times early in 2017. They ended up sending their extra electricity to the state of Arizona. They actually had to pay Arizona to take it during that time.
Again, I’m not trying to make a case for or against renewable energy. These are simply the facts. So how does this affect our thinking ?
If you are in a state like Arizona, you are probably glad to get this very cheap energy from another state. You could obtain that without even having to invest in any renewable infrastructure. Plus, you’re getting green energy , and you’re getting it very cheaply. Some states may actually make this part of their energy plan. They would simply count on other states like California providing them with green energy without having to pay for themselves.
Then what will happen to states like California? Will they feel cheated? Will they eventually demand that renewable energy be scaled-back?
It’s probably too early to tell what will happen. The renewable energy infrastructure most states is still being ramped up. Most people are unaware that this type of scenario is not just possible but probable.
This is great evidence for intelligent design, so why no reference to it? At least they did not attempt to attribute this to evolution. How could evolution account for thousands of tiny hairs all over a bee’s body work together with motion sensors to help direct the bee? Had to be designed that way.
Every so often, I walk behind the buildings of mainstream media and look into their bands that are marked “Don’t print this”. It consists of news items that the news organizations have determined should not be news. That’s when I came across this item.
Cohabitation is pretty prevalent. It is risen dramatically in our culture. If you watch movies and TV, you would think that that’s just a normal part of dating. And Hollywood , which says it’s not responsible for trying to promote violence, drugs, or sex outside of marriage, says it would never do anything to undermine the concept of marriage.
And they also have some swamp land to sell you.
So there are lots of thoughts about cohabitation out there. It is typically presented as something that has absolutely no consequence. This study indicates that cohabitating couples split up more often. No surprise there. But the biggest negative impact is on children. They are much more likely to be the subject of abuse. It affects them in a number of negative ways.
So if you want children that are healthy in every way, you should seek out relationships with people who actually value marriage. And, of course, you want to avoid pregnancy before marriage.
Gee! I wonder why they didn’t want to print that?
I understand why this is being considered, and I know that it is intended to help save human lives. But it’s the stuff out of science-fiction horror novels.
What could go wrong?
How about a complete loss of the distinction between human life and animal life? Once we begin mixing the growth of human tissue with animal tissue, we begin to change the actual nature of that creature. At what point do something like this become human? Or semihuman?
If our worldview is based on a Darwinist view of nature, then there’s nothing to see here. But if human beings are something different from animals, and this is very troubling indeed.