The Party of Death?

Tomorrow (Jan 22) is the Annual March for Life. It is also the 30th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision which has lead to the death of more than fifty million American children. This can be a contentious issue, with lots of name calling and exaggeration for points.

There is even a book called "The Party of Death", accusing Democrats of being "pro-death".

Is there any truth to this? Can some numbers shed light on this?

Whenever I see polls on abortion, the break down is roughly 50/50. I've also seen that Republicans are better than 60/40 on the side of life. About 40% of people identify as Republican or Democrat, with 20% claiming "independent" (although independent candidates usually get less than 10% of the vote, so "wishy-washy" is a more accurate term :)


Ok, so in the general population:
40% * 60% = 24% pro-life Republicans
40% * 40% = 16% pro-death Republicans
50% - 24% = 26% pro-life Others
100%-24%-16%-26% = 34% pro-death Others


This is telling! In the pro-life camp, people are well balanced between Republican and Other. That is, there is little correlation between being pro-life and being Republican. At the same time, in the Others group, people are more than two times(! 34% vs 16%) more likely to be pro-death than pro-life.

Can we break-out Democrats from Independents? I found one poll that pro-life Democrats are 35% and Independents are 44%.

So in the general population:
40% * 35% = 14% pro-life Democrats
20% * 44% = 8.8% pro-life Independents
40% * 65% = 26% pro-death Democrats
20% * 56% = 11.2% pro-death Independent

The pro-life number (14+8.8=22.8) is a little short of the expected 26%, probably due to actually less than 50% of people are pro-life, and me mixing data from polls with guesstimates...

So, this clears the Independents. About 50% are pro-death. It is the Democrats who hold the 2-to-1 ratio (26 to 14) for pro-death to pro-life.


So, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that all the Democrat candidates for president are pro-death. That's what the people want.

We're Immoral Criminals, and Proud of It!

I caught this headline, and was worried that recent advances in creating stem cells from from skin worked differently than I thought. However, it is "just" an announcement of human cloning (using skin cells). I don't know what to say. The head (Samuel Wood) of the company responsible says it best:

"It's unethical and it's illegal, and we hope no one else does it either."

Um, ok.

I recommend anyone in favor of human cloning for organ transplant (or, tangentially, freezing yourself in hopes of future medical cures) read Larry Niven's "Flatlander" line of stories. I'm not saying that's what we'll come to, but it does give you something to worry about.

Book Review

"Why the Ten Commandments Matter" (D. James Kennedy) - I've previously mentioned how I'm disappointed by the Christian literature section of my local library. So, I was surprised to see this thin little book peeking at me from the stacks. I knew I had to read it.

Overall, Kennedy does an excellent job of presenting each of the ten commandments, and convicting the reader of the reality of sin. I don't think I would write a book on this subject quite the same way. The author seems to be targeting more of a Christian audience, or maybe luke-warm Christians. Also, he seems a little distracted by the removal of the ten commandments from public life (both the physical displays and in people's behavior). As Christians, we need to keep in mind that the Bible specifically says the world opposes God. We shouldn't be surprised when it happens. I think it comes from post-millennial eschatology...

Book Review

"The Selfish Gene" (Richard Dawkins) - This book is an insightful introduction to ethology (the study of behavior), with many examples based upon "game theory".

Dawkins is not arguing that there is some particular gene that makes us selfish. Nor, that genes in general make us selfish. That is an unfortunate implication of the title.

Rather, he is intrigued by the notion of seemingly selfless acts, and he reasons from a gene selection basis for how such behavior could be selected for.

The author spends many words to disabuse the reader from the notions of "group selection" (for the good of the species), and even "individual selection" (survival of the fittest individuals). He makes a fairly strong argument that only "genes" (one or more "cistrons" - sections of genetic code) can be selected. He makes effective use of game theory to show how to derive the end results of various strategies for animal behavior (although these "strategies" are usually instinctual).

That said, Dawkins cannot help but editorialize and assert his own views on origins. On page 1, he is so bold as to quote another (in total agreement),

"... all attempts to answer that question ["What is man?"] before 1859 [referring to Darwin's "Origin of the Species"] are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them completely"

So what is Dawkins' theology (and teleology)? Who is Dawkins' god?

Dawkins is no fan of anyone or anything (save his own thoughts). But I would argue that the closest thing to a god for him would be genes. He refers to them as "immortal", and attributes great power to them (although not omnipotence).

Even against this god of his own creation he cannot help but rebel. On page 201 he says, "We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."

Teleology

Teleology is the study of purpose. What is our purpose in life? How does one determine purpose? What does it even mean?

There can be short term purpose (get food from the grocery store), and long term purpose (what should I do with my life). I am only interested in long term purpose.

Strict interpreters of materialism will assert there is no long term purpose to life. And they are right, if there assumptions are correct.

From the Christian side of the aisle, there are actually many different purposes advocated. Which are true?

1. "Your Best Life Now" - Also known as the prosperity "gospel". Very popular today. And very un-Biblical.



2. Get people saved. This is a noble goal, and we should try and see as many people saved as possible. But it is not God's purpose for us. A simple check, if our purpose was to get people saved, then either all people are saved or God's purpose is thwarted.



3. To Glorify God. You won't find this stated explicitly in the Bible (although it is in the Westminster Shorter Catechism). But a thorough reading of the Bible will make it clear. It answers many questions:
   




1. Why did God create the universe? Does God need us around to be happy? No. We were created to glorify God.


2. Why is there evil in the world? To remind us of our need for God, and to allow God to punish evil doers (demonstrating that He is just).


3. Why do some people go to Hell? See answer 2. God is just, and punishes those who break His laws (which is everybody - see the Ten Commandments).


4. Why do we need Jesus (why is He the only way)? Why did Jesus die? Jesus' death pays the price for breaking the law for those who believe in Him. This allows God to be glorified by demonstrating His mercy (not giving punishment that is due) and grace (giving gifts that are not deserved).
   

Eschatology

Eschatology is the study of last things. It is a very important subject, which people rarely study.

I am only going to consider two rival eschatolgies, Christian and materialist/atheist. I'm not going to differentiate between rival Christian theories.


The materialist asserts that nothing exists except what we can observe in the material universe (or that anything outside the universe does not matter). That means the end of humankind is bounded by the end of the universe (probably well before half of all protons degenerate, 10e36 years - most of the stars in our neighborhood will have run down in 1e10 years...). There is no hope here. That's kind of depressing (at least it was to me).

Christians believe that Jesus will come again (because He said He would). At that time, He will restore life to the universe. That is where our hope comes from.

Book Review

"In the Shadow of the Ark" (Anne Provoost) - This is a fictional retelling of the Genesis Flood, from the point of view of a girl outside Noah's family.

I found the theology to be very muddled (not that it claims to be theologically sound), I couldn't tell if it was describing a local or global Flood, or whether God was supposed to be real or not:

1. It wasn't clear, but it seemed as if all species were preserved on the Ark (Flood scholars hold that only "kinds" [precursors of modern species] were preserved).
2. It wasn't clear at all if the Flood covered the whole world. But it had "pre-flooding" which was driving people out of their homes.
3. It makes some bold statements about the morality of Noah and his sons (not that I believe they were perfect, but to make statements this bold, there should be some message).
1. Noah has some sort of disease, the symptoms resemble a common STD.
2. Ham has sexual relations with the main character, before he marries another.
3. Shem and Japheth rape the main character.
4. One of the sons' wives is an idolater.
5. Many of the animals on the Ark are killed (for sacrifices to the idols, and in a fire that breaks out).
4. Noah commissions a large group of people to build the Ark. When the Flood comes, the people are kept off the Ark (with deadly force when necessary). The numbers I've seen show that the Ark would of had plenty of room for people. Noah had 120 years to build the Ark. He likely finished it alone (with the help of his sons, although he may of help early on). People ignored Noah's warnings (Matthew 24:37).
   
5. The rain lasts 40 days and 40 nights (one point for the author!). However, the main character is pregnant (by Ham) at the start of the Flood. She gives birth after the landing at Ararat. It may be artistic license. The author does say that there was not enough food on the Ark.
6. Minor points:
1. There was rain before the Flood (most Flood scholars interpret Genesis 2:5 to mean that there was no rain at all before the Flood [and no rainbows]).
   
2. There were mountains before the Flood (most Flood scholars hold to relatively even terrain before the Flood, to account for enough water to flood the whole earth).
3. Noah is circumcised, and circumcises the new baby after the Flood (circumcision wasn't given until Abraham).

This does segue nicely into Biblical timelines. If you run the numbers, no patriarch (except Noah, of course) lives from before the Flood until after the Flood. In fact, (by my calculations) the Flood was in 1656 AA (after Adam). Methuselah (oldest person ever) died in 1656 (possibly in the Flood)!

Noah was born in 1056. His father (Lamech) was born in 874. Adam died in 930. Think about that. Adam, who spoke with God, lived for the first sixty years of Noah's father's life. Does first- hand knowledge of God seem so shrouded in mist now?

Finally, Enoch was "taken" into Heaven at the early age of about 300 (most of the partriachs were living 800 years or more). Enoch was one generation before Methusaleh (about 60 years). If he had not been taken, he likely could of lived until the Flood (and died in it). Enoch was (very possibly) the first person saved from the Flood.


Absolute final point, vocabulary. The Ark was sealed (made waterproof) with "pitch" (tar). The Hebrew word translated "pitch" is "kopher". Kopher properly means "covering" (in that tar is used as a covering). The verb "to pitch" is "kaphar", which can also mean "to cover" or "atonement".

Noah and his family were saved by "atonement"! Just as we are! The atonement (covering) of our sins by the righteousness of Jesus Christ!