Galileo, the Rainbow, and Guido

Researchers at Brown University recently came up with some surprising research results. So, of course, the Ivy League School did what any institution committed to science and free speech would do.

They quashed the results.

That’s because the findings upset the Perpetually Offended in the LGBT community. It didn’t please them, so Brown University knew they had to remove the results from their web site, even though it appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, PLOS One.

We know that’s the right thing to do, because that’s exactly  what happened to Galileo:

“Hi, Gal! What’s up? Anything new on that telescope?”

“Oh, hello Cardinal Snooticus. I just discovered that the sun does not revolve around the earth. It’s the other way around.”

“Oh, that can’t be right, Gal! You need to look again. Maybe you’ve got a smudge on your telescope. Yeah, that’s right. It’s a smudge.”

“Well, I don’t know about that. I can only report what I observe, Cardinal.”

“Gal, or perhaps I should say Mister Galileo. I don’t think you are getting the picture. Your scientific results do not sit well with the Church. “

“But that doesn’t matter to me. It’s science.”

“Maybe you should talk to Bishop Guido here. He’s from the Inquisition.”

“Actually, uh, Cardinal, I do think I may have a smudge after all. Never mind. It never happened.”

Of course, we all know that’s not what happened. Western society for centuries has put science in a high position in our culture. Christians of all stripes have learned to consider science as another important source of truth, but not the most important source. (And my apologies to my Catholic friends. This was just a silly story.)

But for people who have abandoned Christianity, there is nothing else that’s authoritative to turn to other than science. Secularists like to say that they count on science, and science alone, as the source of truth. We are constantly reminded of that by celebrities and luminaries, lecturing Conservatives about how we need to just focus on science, not opinion. One of the most recent examples of this was Harrison Ford, who spoke out against the anti-science leaders who are skeptical of climate change.

This is thrown at us all of the time. The Perpetually Offended accuse us of being anti-science. But, at the same time, those same accusers only accept the science they like.

And that’s where the research at Brown University comes back in. It was entitled “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports”.  The study had a number of interesting findings:

  • The parents of many female adolescents reported “outbreaks” of gender dysphoria that were statistically unlikely. These girls never reported any instances of gender confusion until they began to hang out with other girls who engaged in heavy Internet use and binge-watching of videos of transgenders.
  • There is a high probability that the outbreaks of gender dysphoria were due to social and peer influence and pressure
  • Peer influence in adolescent girls is typically linked with depression, eating disorders, and drug use

These findings do not fit the template put forward by the LGBT community. Their story is that transgender people are “born that way”, and that it’s not a trend you can just try out and adopt because your friends are doing it.

So the Perpetually Offended were offended again. Adopting the same bully tactics they use with practically anything else they object to, they raised a ruckus with Brown University and demanded that the paper be deleted. Brown University complied. These days, it doesn’t take actual death threats to bring universities into compliance with the Perpetually Offended. It only requires the possibility of death threats. Or perhaps a visit from Guido.

Past studies have shown that the vast majority of adolescents who identified as homosexual or transgender as a minor no longer do so as an adult. I think it’s fair to say that it probably would happen to the children in the Brown University study as well.

The earliest American attempt to determine the percentage of adults who are homosexual was a 1948 book by 1948 book by Alfred Kinsey called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. That study claimed that 10% of the male population was homosexual, but it was based on a count of incarcerated men. It is well understood how “group pressure” in prison often makes those men homosexual, at least while they are in prison. (It should be noted that the 10% figure has been discredited, although it is still repeated throughout the culture. Subsequent studies have shown homosexuals at somewhere between 1.5% to 2.4%.)

Interestingly, a recent survey of Americans showed that most Americans believe the rate of homosexuals in our population is about 21%, which is much, much higher than the actual population. Much of that is probably attributed to the fact that the lifestyle is pushed and promoted throughout the media. That media gives the general impression that homosexuality is more prevalent than it really is.

In addition, there have been a number of recent studies that focused on “sexual fluidity”, or the concept that at least some people can flow between heterosexual and homosexual behavior easily. There certainly are a number of celebrities who appear to have done so, including Drew Barrymore, Elton John, and Anne Heche. But the other studies cited earlier show that the vast majority of people who have ever engaged in homosexual acts will not continue to do so throughout their life.

We are beginning to get a better picture of how homosexuality has become such a “big thing” in our culture. It is a cultural phenomenon that is primarily spread by group pressure. After that pressure is lifted, there is only a very small fraction that remains attracted to the same sex. The homosexual lifestyle has an influence that reaches far beyond the actual population, primarily due to their allies. However, it appears that the vast majority of those who have tried that lifestyle did so because of pressure. It was tried by them and rejected. Let us help those who want to leave that lifestyle. Let us also continue to allow academic freedom to pursue science wherever it leads us. And let us resist the Guidos of this world that pressure us.


Our Imaginary God

I never had a clue. Earlier in our marriage, I was driving on a long trip in our car, and Nancy was sitting in the passenger seat. We went down some very curvy roads in the Appalachian Mountains. Nancy gripped the door handle very firmly. We went around another curve in the road, and I saw her gripping the handle again. “Huh!”, I thought to myself. I don’t remember seeing her do that before. This continued throughout our journey that day. The next day, we were driving at much slower speeds along some city streets. As I made a right hand turn, she gripped the handle again. “Really?”, I thought. The next time I turned, I slowed down much more, so that there was barely any feeling of centrifugal force at all as we turned. Again, she still reached for the handle.

Later that day, I asked her how long she had been doing that.

“For several years”, she said.

And am I driving in a careless way?

“No, not at all”, she said.

So why are you white knuckling the door handle?

She explained that it was just ‘in case something happened’. She didn’t want to be spilled across the front of the car.

Wow! I didn’t realize she did it all the time. I remember seeing her do that a little over the years, but not that much. It was mildly irritating, making me seem like I’m some reckless race car driver. And all during our years of dating and being engaged, I don’t think I ever saw it.

I’m sure there are things Nancy didn’t notice that I did during our dating and engagement. One of them was probably that she didn’t realize how much I love stupid practical jokes. She knew I liked humor, but I don’t think she knew how much of a kick I get out of stupid pranks.

For instance, I had a very phoney looking rubber finger that fit over my pinky finger, with a very large, bloody gash in it. I would sometimes be in another room, scream bloody murder, see Nancy come running over, and I’d show her my terrible – but fake – wound. She would look at me with piercing eyes that said, “An I almost dropped a cake because of this?” Then, she would retreat until the next time I brought out the peanuts that jump out of a can or huge phony sunglasses.

When we were younger, just starting to get to know each other, we had imaginary versions of each other in our heads. To Nancy, I was the suave, debonair man who would sweet talk and charm her every time I came into the room. She probably had no clue that I might have a fake pinky wound on my hand.

Similarly, I saw Nancy as someone who enjoyed every minute of her time with me and was confident of my skills in everything I did. I didn’t realize she was concerned that my driving might cause her to end up going through the windshield.

We each had our imaginary views of what the other person was like. We had our dreamy-eyed thoughts about the one we were in love with.

And then reality hit. We realized that the other person sometimes did things we didn’t understand. Or didn’t agree with. But that was okay. I was still her husband, and she was still my wife. We weren’t perfect, but we still loved and admired each other.

Recently, I saw a movie where a mother was crying. She told her little boy that she didn’t think she was a good mother. (She actually was.) The boy said, “That’s okay. You’re Mom.” His Mom was being Mom, and that was okay, even if she wasn’t perfect, and he loved her.

That applies as well to our view about God.

Recently, authors of “How to Be a Perfect Christian” sarcastically quipped, “The God of the Bible would never do anything you would personally disagree with.” That is a modern-day motto of many people concerning how they think God is. They believe He will only do things they think make sense. He would never do something that challenges their preconceived notions of Him.

Many atheists, agnostics, and unbelievers see God as someone who only does things THEY believe are proper. He must be anti-war. He must be pro-choice. He must think it’s okay to live in sexual immorality. After all, he is all-loving. He doesn’t have any objections to anything, because objections would mean he doesn’t love.

So when they read the Bible, they see only what they want to see. They step over the verses they don’t believe. Because God couldn’t possibly be like that.

Or they just give up on God. If God is like THAT, I just won’t be a Christian.

But if we believe God exists, we will not start with the notions in our mind about who God is and how he behaves. We will let him reveal himself.

He famously told Moses, “I Am that I Am.” There is a lot in that sentence, but one aspect is that God will be who He will be. God said that when he was a burning bush that did not burn up in the fire. No one had ever seen God in that way. Could that really be God? It didn’t fit how Moses understood God to be. But it was God.

Many today who don’t – or won’t – believe in God are really just dealing with their belief in an imaginary God. They start out with who they think God must be. When they find out that He is different, many don’t know what to do. They don’t know how to deal with a real God who acts in ways that run counter to our cardboard cutout of God.

If you truly want to seek God and consider whether the Christian God is true, you need to discard your notions of what you think God is and make Him match up to your expectations. Instead, you need to let him reveal himself to you through God’s Word and allow him to be formed in your mind as He really is.

Hamas rioter: group tricks women, children to enter line of fire

What is the mindset of those who deliberately want to put women and children into harm’s way. No matter what religion you belong to, it’s never right to put innocent lives at risk.


The first of two morally bankrupt stories from our culture

Sometimes, the popular culture serves up a story so morally vacuous that I sometimes wonder if we’ve been invaded by aliens. How can anyone be so narcissistic?

This story is about a stripper named Blac China who rose to fame through her “exotic dancing” and “modeling”. (I wonder if ‘Chyna’ is cultural appropriation? But I digress.)

Chyna is apparently pregnant again. This will be her third pregnancy, and it’s by an 18-year-old boy rapper. Chyna apparently really knows how to pick men. She previously got pregnant from two other boyfriends. The first was boyfriend Tyga (Is that really ‘Tigger’ from Winnie the Pooh? If so, he’s got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.) This happened in 2012. That relationship lasted a few years. 

Chyna was clearly so devoted to her young toddler that she got another boyfriend and had another child in 2016. This relationship also lasted a few years. 

But recently, Chyna decided to be more discriminating, so she looked on a Christian dating site. Is this a thing now, trolling for guys to bed on a Christian dating site? What’s the attraction? That they’re morally straight? That’s a sad reflection on the fact that Chyna went there, and that her new beau was hanging on that site as well. 

We know it must have been a success because she found a new guy named Jay. He’s 18. I’m sure he’s got strong parenting skills, which is obvious in his statement about his relationship with Chyna: 

 “I don’t wear condoms. . . I would not want to f— a b—- I did not want to get pregnant,” he says. “If Chyna got pregnant, I would keep that s— like ‘ohh daddy love you,’ I love that a-“

Hmmm. I think we can all see the admirable qualities of such a man. 

The sad fact of the matter is that Chyna has really no care for those children. To her, they are nothing more than souvenirs of her temporary sexual relationships with the boyfriend-of-the-month. 

Recently, I’ve been reading a book called Primal Loss, in which adults who endured their parents’ divorce as a child get a chance to talk about the pain and suffering they have endured because of that divorce. Children who have parents that come and go suffer for a long, long time. Parents who spend an inordinate amount of their lives focusing on the next relationship inevitably end up neglecting the real needs of their kids. 

Those children deserve to be brought up in a stable home with a father and a mother who are married to each other. Chyna, like many other celebrities, have children as they wish, believing that those kids will be resilient and will never suffer from their mother’s lack of attention and revolving-door relationships. These children suffer real harm because of a self-absorbed mother. 

Those children will never know what it’s like to sit down for a family meal with mom and dad who love each other, help their kids with their homework, and go to their soccer games. Instead, they may get dropped off at some guy’s house for a weekend, while he himself focuses on his next girlfriend. 

Unfortunately, I doubt this will be the end of the story for Chyna. After all, she’s only 29 and there are plenty more teenage guys left on Christian dating sites. 

The worldview of Sexual Autonomy says that the only thing that is important is that one be fulfilled sexually. It doesn’t matter if you have to find a teenager. It doesn’t matter if you get pregnant. It doesn’t matter if this teenager is anything but a good prospect as a father. As long as you can fulfill your wildest sexual dreams, then everything’s okay. Forget about who has to pay for your very limited life goals.

‘Smallville’ actress Allison Mack arrested for alleged sex cult involvement | Fox News

It is often a question I ask myself when I hear about a new cult and their beliefs and practices:

Why would they believe/act that way, when it is so different from conventional beliefs and behavior?

I’m this case, the cult Nexium was a financial and motivational personality cult that ended up sex trafficking it’s own female members. They even branded those women, literally, with an iron.

Most cults are a twisting of Biblical concepts, so they feed off of people who believe the cult has finally found the “real truth” about God. Nexium, however, fed off of people with no appetite for God. Instead, it lured people in using things out current culture finds important: money, prestige, and sex.

Oldest Archaeopteryx Fossil Challenges “Missing Link” Theory

The oldest known fossil of an archaeopteryx has been uncovered in Germany. We have actually known for some time that the archaeopteryx is not an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds. We have known this for quite some time. This article states that clearly.However, that myth continues to be spread by teachers and others who should know better.  

In fact, we have enough such fossils to realize that there are variations between the fossils which may indicate different species. Contrary to popular views of evolution, the fossil record shows that animal species sprung up in history all at once, fully formed, in a number of events known to scientists as fossil “explosions” (such as the “Cambrian explosion”). Instead of finding fossils that slightly change over millions of years, we simply find species that suddenly appear in the fossil record. Archaeopterys is one of them. 

It’s time we let the archaeopteryx “missing link” myth go to sleep.

I was a committed atheist and then this incredible thing happened to me

It always fascinates me when someone begins to question their way of thinking because life isn’t really working for them the way they are. This young woman was challenged to look into different world religions and something that made sense. 

Do you go through life just accepting whatever your friends say about life? Have you stopped to think about whether they are really satisfied with their life?