There was a short discussion recently on UK Channel 4 between Canadian university professor named Jordan Peterson, and a radical feminist with an undergraduate degree in English named Cathy Newman. While you watch, imagine that she is teaching some non-STEM course that you’ve enrolled in. Would you dare to disagree with her?

First, the video, which has over 11 million views:

And here is an article from the UK Spectator: (paywalled)

Whatever else anybody might think of him, Professor Peterson is a man of remarkable learning and experience, and does not appear to have arrived at any of his views by the now common means of ‘I reckon’. Yet Newman, who approaches the interview with the trademark sourness she employs for everyone she expects to disagree with, treats this is just another chance to burnish her own social justice credentials and expose her guest as a bigot. Big mistake.

Storming straight in with the differences between the sexes, in the opening minutes it is clear that Professor Peterson is willing to back up all his views with references, data and calm analysis. 

By 11 minutes in she is saying ‘I think I take issue with (that)’, before demonstrating that she can’t. Soon she is reduced to dropping the bombshell observation that ‘all women are different’. By 16.45 there is a palpable win, as Peterson points out that Newman has exactly the disagreeable and aggressive qualities that allow certain types of people to succeed. By 19.30 she is having to throw out things to him that he hasn’t even said, such as ‘You’re saying women aren’t intelligent enough to run top companies’. A minute later and she is reduced to countering empirical evidence with anecdote. Peterson presents the data about men in general and Newman responds with the ‘I know plenty of men who aren’t (like that)’ card. Shortly after that (at 22.25) Newman is reduced to spluttering and then silence. She tries to pull herself together. But she can think of nothing to say.

To be honest, Cathy Newman is nothing like the women I’m friends with. All of my closest friends are Christian women. All of them are anti-feminist to some degree, with the most successful one professionally (Dina) being the wisest and most anti-feminist of all. When I think of my panel of wise Christian women advisors – each with one or more STEM degrees – I don’t recognize Cathy Newman in them. But Cathy Newman does remind me of the radical feminists I encountered when I was doing my BS and MS degrees in computer science at the university.

In my experience, radical feminists debate using six tactics:

1. Deny facts or evidence because men were involved in researching them or discovering them
2. Countering empirical data with anecdotes and personal experiences
3. Taking arguments and evidence as if they are personal attacks
4. Becoming hysterical and crying
5. Claiming that disagreement with feminism will produce violence against women and women committing suicide, etc.
6. Trying to get you expelled, fired or silenced – often by making false accusations or faking hate crimes against themselves

It’s important for everyone to understand the views of others in order to know how defensible our own views are. In order to get the best scholarly case for radical feminism, I like to read feminist academics like Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia, Jennifer Roback Morse, etc. who evaluate and critique radical feminist scholarship. That’s how I encounter the ideas of those I disagree with (as well as listening to and watching debates).

Here’s a short Factual Feminist video:

I understand the claims that are made by radical feminists, but I am also aware of what the evidence says. I don’t try to stop feminists from making claims, I just study how to refute their claims.

But what about the radical feminists? Do they do a good job of understanding those who disagree with them? Let’s take a look at an example which I think is representative of feminist tolerance and open-mindedness.

The Toronto Sun reports on a sociology professor who gave her students an assignment – an assignment with some very peculiar constraints.

Excerpt:

A Ryerson University student who wanted to write a paper on the “myth” of the male-female wage gap was told by her prof that not only was she wrong, she should only rely on feminist journals for her assignment instead of business sources which “blame women,” her sister says.

Josephine Mathias, 21, a fourth-year political science student at University of Toronto, took to YouTube Wednesday to criticize the assignment given her twin Jane for a sociology class.

[…]After Jane sent an email describing her intention to write about the wag gap, her instructor replied that her premise was wrong, Josephine said.

Here’s what the professor said:

“Perhaps you want to write your paper on the glass ceiling. You need to look at feminist sources on this issue…Do NOT use business sources. They blame women. The reality is patriarchy,” says the instructor’s email, posted online.

In a copy of the assignment provided to the Toronto Sun by Josephine, the instructor also notes that Ontario and Canada government websites and Statistics Canada will not be considered scholarly sources.

“Government websites state government policy that is devoid of analysis, and usually reproduces mainstream stereotypes, assumptions and misconceptions,” the assignment says.

What is interesting is that the professor makes about $167,000 a year – higher than the average professor’s salary. And she’s not teaching computer science or petroleum engineering. I find it interesting that another Canadian university reprimanded a grad student for showing a debate clip that offered both sides of the transgenderism debate. Leftist tolerance. Leftist open-mindedness.

Once you’ve paid your tuition, and the leftist has the grading pen, you lose every argument. Either you get an F, or you get expelled. If you’re in the workplace, you get fired. False charges are often made. Hate crimes are faked. Anything to play the victim, rather than address the arguments and evidence. This is how people on the left “debate”.

As I wrote previously, the more women embrace radical feminism, the more toxic they become to men. Not just in the classroom or the workplace, but in relationships. Who wants to marry someone whose only response to reason is fury? Men might be OK with temporary arrangements with abusive women. At least while those women have youth and beauty. But men don’t marry abusive women. At least, not if they have any wisdom.

(Image source: Independent Man)

I noticed a number of stories this weak showing that the Democrats are more interested in rewarding evildoers than protecting the taxpayers who pay their salaries. Sadly, when I tried to share them on Facebook, Facebook didn’t let ANYONE see them. And I mean zero likes, zero clicks. I’m hoping that I can link to the stories in this post and they won’t notice.

Here’s the first one from Daily Wire:

Two Afghan refugees who were brought into the United States following Democrat President Joe Biden’s disastrous pullout from the country are facing federal charges related to allegedly trying to rape a minor and suffocate a woman.

“Bahrullah Noori, 20, is charged with attempting to engage in a sexual act with a minor using force against that person, and with three counts of engaging in a sexual act with a minor, with one count alleging the use of force,” the Department of Justice said in a statement. “The indictment alleges that the victims had not attained the age of 16 years and were at least four years younger than the defendant.”

“Mohammad Haroon Imaad, 32, is charged with assaulting his spouse by strangling and suffocating her,” the statement continued. “The indictment alleges that the assault occurred on September 7, 2021.”

Not sure why these guys are being charged by the Democrats, as they were very anxious to let them into the country, and they sound like they would be more conservative than some people like AOC and Ilhan Omar. These two refugees are the future of the Democrat party – they’d make great Democrat legislators.

Here’s story number two, from CNS News:

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced Thursday that Border Patrol agents will no longer be using horses in Del Rio, Texas, to protect the border against people illegally trying to enter the United States.

Psaki said that DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told civil rights leaders Thursday morning about the decision ahead of the results of an investigation into Border Patrol agents handling of Haitian migrants attempting to cross the Rio Grande River into Texas.

[…]Mayorkas on Tuesday condemned the actions of Border Patrol agents who were accused of using horse reins to “whip” Haitians trying to illegally enter the U.S., saying Tuesday, “We do not condone, we do not tolerate any mistreatment of any migrant. The actions we’re taking are swift and strong, and we will take further action as the facts adduced in the investigation compel.”

Now, you’ll note that Democrat politicians are typically very wealthy, live in gated communities, and have taxpayer-funded armed security to guard them. They aren’t going to be affected by their “compassion” and “inclusion” policies. You will be. In fact, Democrats say that their blue states are too expensive for illegals to live, because of all the taxes. So where do you think they ship them?

Here’s story number three, from Daily Wire:

The sister of a murder victim in upstate New York is speaking out after Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul (NY) signed and boasted of progressive legislation that releases convicts who violate their parole.

From the Monroe Country jail alone, 17 felons were released this week pursuant to the “Less is More” Act signed by Hochul on Friday. One of the men released was 21-year-old murder suspect Joseph Rivera, who’s accused of killing 47-year-old Heather Majors at her home in July.

Rivera allegedly used a hatchet to kill Majors, striking her some 30-plus times as she held her hands in a defensive position to fight off the attack, local radio host Bob Lonsberry outlined Thursday. It’s suspected that Rivera, a neighbor of the well-liked Majors, was attempting to rob her, though the motive is unknown.

After Rivera was suspected of the crime, he was snagged on a parole violation from an earlier felony conviction and put in jail while authorities worked to formally charge him in the murder.

On Tuesday, though, Rivera was released.

“On Tuesday, though, Rivera was released.” Released by Democrats. And why not? Like I said, they have gated communities, armored cars, taxpayer-funded armed guards, etc. They’re rich. They don’t have to care about their decisions. You do. You’re the one who is affected by their kindness and tolerance and diversity.

Last story from Fox News:

Chicago’s weekend bloodshed included nine murders and 56 shooting victims – but the violence didn’t stop there, as an alderman visiting a known “problem corner” was assaulted by a group of men who appeared intoxicated and high on illicit drugs.

From 6 p.m. Friday to just before midnight Sunday night, Chicago police recorded 46 shooting incidents, involving 56 victims. Nine murders were recorded during that time.

A 3-year-old boy was among the shooting victims. The child was shot in the back at 10:45 a.m. Saturday in the 9300 block of South Escanaba Avenue on the South Side in what police believe to be an accident, the Chicago Sun Times reported. The child was hospitalized in good condition.

Now, you might recall that the Democrat mayor of Chicago is strongly opposed to law-abiding citizens defending themselves from criminals. Chicago has some of the toughest taxes and regulations on gun ownership and self-defense in the nation. They don’t like law-abiding people owning guns. But you know what Democrats say about criminals with guns? Defund the police. That’s their solution to everything criminals do.

And of course, if you want to know what Democrats think about terrorists, just look at how they coddle and appease Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are wrong across the board on national security and foreign policy. Don’t you think that Al-Qaeda is back in Afghanistan already, planning the next 9/11 attack? I do. And it’s because Democrats are running the federal government.

Well, it’s that time of year again, when corporations bully their employees into donating to the United Way. I thought it might be a good idea to urge all Bible-believing Christians to avoid donating to the United Way.  Please share this post if you agree with it!

Let’s start with abortion. The United Way gives TONS of money to fund abortion providers.

In 2008, United Way affiliates send $1.9 million to Planned Parenthood:

The national United Way does fund Planned Parenthood; their website states:

United Way funded programs through Planned Parenthood include community health maintenance, e.g. communicable disease prevention; medical care service; family planning; health education; public awareness services; and family preservation and strengthening services, e.g. counseling and family life education.

Nationally in 2008, local United Ways distributed an estimated $1.9 million to Planned Parenthood agencies.

Any finances being donated to Planned Parenthood (even if not specifically for abortion services) will free up more of their money to be used toward abortion services.

In 2015, United Way sent $3 million to Planned Parenthood:

Last year, on the heels of shocking videos showing the Planned Parenthood abortion business selling the body parts of aborted babies, a new expose’ from a group that monitors corporations that finance the abortion giant reveals the United Way is a major donor. That expose found United Way agencies giving $2 million to the abortion giant.

A new expose’ released this week shows that figure has increased to $3 million.

In 2016, United Way sent $3 million to Planned Parenthood:

Analysis of the most recent IRS Form 990 filings and other documentation found 62 United Way affiliates sent $2,756,799 to Planned Parenthood abortion organizations in tax year 2016. 2ndVote’s latest findings indicate an increase of $168,806 from the $2,590,994 United Way funneled to Planned Parenthood in 2015.

We’re living in a time when abortion rights involves such issues as sex-selection abortions, race-selection abortions, covering up statutory rapists, Democrat support for infanticide, attacking Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, selling the body parts of unborn babies, etc. I don’t think we can count on United Way to come down on the right side of these issues. We’re already being forced to fund abortions with our tax dollars, thanks to Democrats. I don’t think we should give any more money to abortion providers and their secular leftist allies.

That’s abortion. What about gay rights? We’ve seen a lot of pressure on traditional values coming from the secular left lately. They redefined marriage AGAIN to deprive children of their biological mothers or fathers. They’re pushing for the Equality Act, which would have huge religious liberty repercussions for Christians.

Texas attorney Maria Martinez explains on the American Thinker:

The Equality Act is more draconian that any state or city conversion therapy ban to date because it takes away the traditional constitutional exemption for religious freedom.  The act specifically states that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) may not be invoked as a defense, marking the first time in history that Congress has limited the reach of RFRA.  This means that it could become illegal for Christian pastors, churches, schools, and ministries to communicate a message that sexual orientation or gender identity can change.  The Equality Act is unprecedented in its overreach, impacting even adults who are willingly seeking counseling.

By contrast, therapy of any kind that pushes a person toward same-sex attraction or gender transition is not impacted by the law at all.

Banning counseling isn’t the only thing the Equality Act will do:

• Parents could lose custody of their children if they decline to assist in their gender transition.  Parents in Ohio recently lost custody of their female child because they would not give her testosterone supplements to help her “transition” to look like a male.

• Doctors and hospitals could be subject to lawsuits for refusing to perform so-called “sex change” surgeries.  In California and New Jersey, Catholic hospitals are already being sued for discrimination for refusing to perform these surgeries.

• Battered women’s shelters could be required to admit members of the opposite sex.  In Anchorage, Alaska, a male who was refused access to a shelter for abused and trafficked women sued the shelter for “gender identity discrimination.”

• Faith-based adoption and foster care agencies that believe that children do best with both a mother and a father could be forced to shut down.  This has already occurred in at least six states in this country.

I wonder what United Way thinks about attacks on Bible-believing Christians by LGBT activists? All I could find on the Facebook page of the national organization was this:

I don’t find that very encouraging, do you? And this is not the only pro-LGBT image I found on United Way Facebook pages. By the way, I saved a copy of their Facebook page, in case it disappears.

As a Bible-believing Christian, maybe I would be better off giving money to an organization that protects religious liberty, like Alliance Defending Freedom. I understand that many people who call themselves Christians think that the United Way’s positions are compatible with the Bible. But not everyone who calls herself a Christian actually takes the Bible seriously. Especially when it interferes with their career advancement and peer approval. This is especially true of people who work in Human Resources.

Please, don’t give money to the United Way

You don’t HAVE to give money to the United Way, just because the godless progressives in your office try to bully you into it. Instead, why not send the money to the Life Training Institute, or Ratio Christi, or Alliance Defending Freedom? These are groups do operate on Bible-based principles. I do think that Christians need to be careful about who they donate their money to. It doesn’t make sense for Christians to get up and go to work and earn money, and then give it away to anti-Christian groups who want Christianity to disappear from American life. Paul talks about how God rewards those who give gifts to partner for the gospel in Philippians. Make sure that you are not wasting your money on anything less.

The free enterprise system should not be adopted simply because it is the best system for creating wealth. The best reason to support free market capitalism is a moral reason. Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute, and a Christian, describes the moral argument for free market capitalism.

Excerpt:

It might seem that the best case for free enterprise is the material one. Free enterprise lets people make more money, buy more and nicer stuff, and have a greater degree of comfort. The freer our economy is, the more competitive the US economy is vis-à-vis the rest of the world. And so on.

But these aren’t our best arguments. There is another reason, a transcendent reason, for which free enterprise matters most—and this is the case we all must be able to make today.

We all learned early on in school that the Declaration of Independence claimed for each of us the unalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Note that the founders didn’t assert a right to be happy; such is the domain of tinpots and crackpots, of 1984’s “Ministry of Plenty” and Josef Stalin’s aggrandizing self-description as the Soviet Union’s “Constructor of Happiness.” So what, in practice, does this right to pursue happiness mean?

It means the right to define and earn our happiness through our ideas, hard work, and gumption, to earn our success by creating value honestly, in our own lives and in the lives of others. It doesn’t mean the pursuit of a big lottery win or an inheritance. Those bring money, but not happiness. And a mountain of evidence shows that after a fairly low threshold, more money doesn’t make us happier. The best case for free enterprise has nothing at all to do with money or material goods or wealth. Those are just icing on the cake. We must stop talking about free enterprise as just an engine of wealth creation. It’s much more than that.

In short, the secret to the pursuit of happiness is earning our own success; creating value with our lives and in the lives of others. This earned success is the fruit of hard work and just rewards in a system built on merit. Only in a free enterprise system is effort and innovation rewarded over connections and predation. (And this means that we have to draw a distinction between free enterprise, which is based on opportunity and competition between ideas, and corporate cronyism, which is just another form of statism masquerading as free enterprise.)

Here are 3 reasons why I think that social conservatives should support free market capitalism.

1) Right to work

It’s very important for Christians to have an economic system in place that allows them to work without having to promote anti-Christians ideas. But when government gets too big, what happens is that Christians are no longer free to take any job they want, and still keep a clear conscience. In some states, you have to join a union which uses your union dues to elect Democrats, who very often are liberal on social issues. Or, you have big government forcing Christians to perform abortions against their consciences. Or, you have big government forcing Christian organizations to provide health insurance plans that cover abortions and contraceptives. That’s why Christians need to vote against big government regulations on employment – we need the freedom to work at a job that does not violate our consciences.

2) Right to earn

It’s very important for Christians to keep what they earn so that they have the maximum amount of money to make decisions that make sense for them, according to their consciences. Take the example of day care and education. The big government statist is constantly trying to to create more and more government-run day care and public schools. Why? They want to take money away from families so that they cannot afford individualized private and parochial schools, and lump them all into government run schools that are more “equal”. The problem is that this is bad for Christians who want more oversight into what their children learn. For example, what sense does it make for a Christian man to pay for day care and public schools when he marries a teacher who becomes a stay at home homeschooling mother for his children? He has to pay for day care and public schools he will never use, and it eats into the money he has to afford a stay-at-home homeschooling mom. Christians should oppose a day care and education system run by a secular leftist government. They will never reflect the values of Christian parents.

3) Right to spend

It’s very important for Christians to have the freedom to purchase products and services that make sense in their worldview. Take the example of health care. Secular leftists would love to force private medical insurance companies to cover things like abortion and contraception as health care. In some states, these things are specified as mandatory for every health care plan. That means that Christians who purchase health care are being forced to pay for services like abortion which they will never use themselves. This is nothing more than the redistribution of wealth in order to lower the cost of abortions for people, in order to encourage them to be sexually active before they are able to accommodate children. Christians need to oppose this – we do not want to have to pay for things that go against our consciences.

So, in addition to the reasons that Brooks mentioned (the happiness of earning your own way and serving others), it’s important for Christians to understand how free market capitalism fits into their plans. We do not want to support big government, especially when big government so often is not compatible with Judeo-Christian values. In the free market, it is much harder for ALL the businesses to conspire together to block Christians from working, earning and spending according to their consciences. We must resist top-down control of the free market so that we have the liberty to do what we ought to do in order to be virtuous.

Recently, I posted a dating ad from a 39-year-old never-married single mother. She explained that she was now a Christian and was looking for a man to marry her, so that she could have a second child “the right way”. Some people thought we should take her conversion at face value. Others thought she was desperate and looking for a financial bailout. How can we tell if she is really sincere?

Well, I was still thinking about the comments on that post when I saw another great post from Laura, who writes at An Affair With Reason. Her post is about the feelings of regret that people have because of their past mistakes, and how Christians should deal with those regrets.

She writes:

As I thought about what to write I became distressed, sorrowful, angry, and even despondent over some of my own decisions. As I sobbed inconsolably, I noticed that every caustic thought began with, “If only….” That’s when I realized I was still carrying the burden of regret and I didn’t know how to let go. It wasn’t that I still needed God’s forgiveness or that I had any doubts about my standing with him; I knew I was forgiven. It was the lifelong consequences that I experience to this day which embittered my soul and squelched my joy.

The “if onlys” are a heavy burden to carry. They represent shattered dreams that will never be recovered in this life. They invoke feelings of discontentment, grief, and doubt. They cause us to sob with regret for what could have been, to pray for second chances that we know will not be granted.

So what do we do with the regrets that we must live with for the rest of our lives? Lately, as I’ve reflected on conversations I’ve had with many women who have made regretful decisions over the years and on the direction of our culture, I’ve noticed two very distinct paths:

1. Attempt to assuage our own guilt and regret by convincing others to make the same foolish, and even sinful, decisions we made.

 OR

2. Humble ourselves, grieve our losses, and commit to teaching the younger generations to choose a better way.

The first path is the wide and well-traveled one. Tragically and despicably, most people today seek to justify themselves and ease their consciences by getting others on board with their own ignorance, foolishness, and sinfulness.

She’s got quite a few examples of the kinds of regrets that men and women have, and different ways of dealing with those regrets. Some ways self-serving, others God-serving. Her examples are really interesting. It reminds me of “The Great Divorce” by C.S. Lewis, where he explains why some people don’t resist God, and others do. Some people want to justify the past, and keep making decisions to benefit themselves. Others want to serve God. They want to take on the difficult work of opening up to others, and loving them by telling them the truth.

When I hear someone with a past say that they have now become a Christian, I normally ask “is this conversion just convenient for you or is it the result of some process where your mind was changed through study?” You can ask the person to show their work – how did they get to the right answer? And what has becoming a Christian cost them? How does it affect their relationships with non-Christians?

People “convert to Christianity” all the time based on need. Sometimes they’re trying to get something for themselves, e.g. – wanting to not be judged for their past, so they can attract a partner to financially support them. But other people spend years reading books and changing their minds page by page, debate by debate. Then they put their knowledge into practice.

I have mentored women who did this. One girl who contacted me through the blog wasn’t able to talk to her smart atheist brother about her faith. Then, she read a bunch of apologetics books about science and history, then called me and slipped the phone into her pocket and let me listen to her make a bold, informed stand for her Christian worldview for two hours. She won every point.

When people really become Christians, they don’t do it in order to be happy and or to be liked. They take on work, and they take on shame, because they have a Boss now. That’s how you can tell that real repentance has taken place. The letters of Paul in the New Testament are filled with advice for Christians who want to be bold, put themselves second, and advocate for their Boss. You should read them. When you read the Bible, try to put aside your feelings, your desires, and your concerns about what people will think. You’ll find that putting work for the Boss ahead of what you want is worth the price of being “second”. I would start with Philippians, then go on to 1 Peter.

By the way, this isn’t the first time I’ve linked to Laura’s posts. Here are some of the other times I’ve linked to her work on my blog: on voting, on Islam, on mentoring boys, on fighting with pastors, on learning what works when dealing with atheists. She had a 10 part series advising women how to choose a husband, which really made me feel good as a man. Today, most people see a husband as an accessory – like a handbag. He’s there to provide, or to be a handyman, or to complain at if the wife is unhappy. Men should read that series, and find out what we can do in a marriage, if we are valued for our distinctive male nature.

This lecture is special to me, because I bought a VHS tape of it just after I started working full-time, and watched it a million times. A lot of people come to their convictions about God’s existence because of parents or church or intuitions, but for me it’s all about the scientific evidence. This lecture changed my life. I wish more people taught their children about this evidence! This lecture was delivered at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

About the speaker:

Dr. Bradley received his B.S. in Engineering Science and his Ph.D. in Materials Science from the University of Texas in Austin.

Dr. Bradley taught for eight years at the Colorado School of Mines before assuming a position as Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Texas A&M University (TAMU) in 1976.

During his 24 years at Texas A&M, Dr. Bradley served as Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Texas A&M University and as Director of the Polymer Technology Center, and received five College of Engineering Research Awards. He has received over $4,500,000 in research grants and has published over 140 technical articles and book chapters. He has also co-authored “The Mystery Of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. He is a Fellow of the American Society for Materials and of the American Scientific Affiliation and serves as a consultant for many Fortune 500 companies.

He currently serves as Distinguished Professor of Engineering at Baylor University.

The lecture: (63 minutes lecture, 25 minutes audience Q&A)

Summary slide:

Introduction:

• At the beginning of the 20th century, people believed that the progress of science was pointing away from an intelligent Creator and Designer, and towards naturalism
• A stream of new discoveries has shifted the support of science towards theism, and away from naturalism
• Richard Dawkins, an atheist, says that nature only has the appearance of design, but that if you look closer, naturalistic mechanisms can account for the appearance of design
• When deciding between design and apparent design (“designoid”), it matters whether you think there is an intelligence there to do the designing

Evidence #1: The Big Bang:

• an eternal “steady state” universe is more compatible with naturalism, but a created universe is more compatible with a Creator
• In 1929, Hubble used telescopes to observe that the light from distant galaxies was redshifted. The further away galaxies were, the faster they were moving away. Therefore, space is expanding in all directions, suggesting an explosive origin of the universe
• In 1965, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation matched a prediction of the Big Bang cosmology, and of the creation event
• In 1992, the COBE space telescope allowed us to test four specific predictions of the Big Bang model, especially the predictions for light element abundances (hydrogen and helium), which matched the predictions of the creation model

Evidence #2: Simple mathematical structure of the physical laws

• the simple mathematical structure of natural laws allows us to understand these laws, make discoveries, and engineer solutions to problems
• early scientists saw the mathematical structure of the universe to mean that nature was designed by an intelligent to be understood
• the fundamental equations of the laws of the universe can be easily written on one side of one sheet of paper
• Eugene Wigner’s famous paper, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences” makes the point that this simple structure is an unexpected gift that allows is to do science

Evidence #3: fine-tuning of the physical constants and quantities

• in order for any kind of complex life to survive, we need stars that provide energy within specific ranges for long periods of time
• in order for any kind of complex life to survive, we need planets with stable orbits that will not suffer from extreme temperature swings as it varies in distance from its star
• in order for any kind of complex life to survive, we need stable atomic structure
• in order for any kind of complex life to survive, we need to have chemical diversity and correct relative abundances of each element
• organic life has minimum requirements: process energy, store information, replicate, and you can’t fulfill those functions if there is only one element, e.g. – hydrogen
• the energy level from the photons from the sun have to match the energy levels of the different elements in order to drive the chemical bonding needed for life
• These requirements for life of any imaginable type depend on the values of the constants and quantities. The constants and quantities cannot vary much from what they are, or the universe will lose the characteristics (above) that allow it to support complex life of any imaginable time
• For example, ratio of strong force to electromagnetic force:
  – if 2% larger, then no stable hydrogen, no long-lived stars, no compounds containing hydrogen, e.g. – water
  – if 5% smaller, no stable stars, heavy hydrogen would be unstable, few elements other than hydrogen

Evidence #4: initial conditions for habitability

• Universe: expansion rate of the universe must be fast enough to avoid a re-collapse, but slow enough to allow matter to clump together and form stars and planets for complex life to live on
• Planet: right distance from the star to get the right climate
• Planet: right mass to retain the right atmosphere

Evidence #5: origin of life and information theory

• It’s possible to explain every process in an automobile engine using plain old naturalistic mechanisms – no supernatural explanation is necessary to understand the processes
• But the existence of engine itself: engineering all the parts has to be explained by the work of an intelligence
• Similarly, we can understand how living systems work, but the existence of the living systems requires an intelligence
• Even the simplest living system has to perform minimal function: capture energy, store information and replicate
• Living systems are composed of objects like proteins that are composed of sequences of components complex such that the order of the components gives the overall structure function
• Developing the components for a simple living cell is very improbable – even given the large number of galaxies, stars and planets in the universe, it is unlikely that complex, embodied life would exist anywhere in the universe

Evidence #6: more initial conditions for habitability

• Location within the galaxy: you need to be away from the center of the galaxy, because the explosions from dying stars, and excessive radiation will kill life
• Location within the galaxy: you need to be close enough to the center in order catch the heavy elements you need for life from the explosions of other stars
• Location within the galaxy: the best location is between two arms of  a spiral galaxy, where you can get the heavy elements you need from dying stars, but without being hit with explosions and harmful radiation
• Star mass: determines rate at which the sun burns, determines the energy level of photons that are used to drive chemical bonding reactions, determines the length of time the star will be stable
• Star mass: star mass must be the correct value in order to allow liquid water on the planet’s surface, while still preserving stable orbit

I wish there was more curiosity about science in churches, and young Christians understood how critical science is for grounding the rationality of the Christian worldview. We need to be training up more scientists who think about the big questions, like Dr. Walter Bradley.

I read and enjoyed Dr. Helen Smith’s book “Men on Strike” a few years back. The book explains a few of the developments that have led to men underperforming in school and in the workplace, and opting out of marriage and fatherhood.

Dr. Helen comes to this problem as a secular libertarian, not as a Christian conservative.

A review of Dr. Helen’s book appeared in Salvo magazine. The review is written by Terrell Clemmons, who has the best Christian worldview of any woman I know – I frequently rely on her advice.

Terrell writes:

While the feminist movement may originally have been about equal respect for both sexes, what it has morphed into, she argues, is female privilege. From rape laws that empower women but not the men they may falsely accuse, to divorce laws tilted in favor of the wife, to the feminization of the U.S. education system, men have become the sex under the gun, while women enjoy the status of a protected class.

But unlike their mothers or grandmothers, men today are not taking to the streets burning their undergarments and shrieking demands (thank God). They’re doing just the opposite, which is far worse. They’re going on strike. The strike zones are manifold:

Higher Education.In addition to the enrollment imbalance, which is approaching a 60/40 ratio of women to men, college has become, in the words of one professor, “a hostile working environment [in which] males increasingly feel emasculated.” Smith quotes a student named John, who had this to say about his college experience: “I had already been cautious around women, having grown up with Tawana Brawley in my backyard and daily stories of sexual harassment; I played it safe and passive every time. But it doesn’t matter. The only way not to lose is to not play. So I’m out.”

Work,including community involvement. With higher female graduation rates and salaries, men today are falling behind their fathers economically and professionally. Consequently, their efforts to prove themselves worthy mates through hard work and higher earnings don’t win female attention the way they used to. Discouraged, too many retreat to a man cave, and inertia sets in from there.

Marriage.Marriage rates are down, and honest men opting out will tell you why. Smith cites a Rutgers University study of single heterosexual men which turned up the top reasons they hadn’t married. They can get sex and the companionship of cohabitation without marriage more easily than in times past, and they don’t want to open themselves up to the risk of divorce and financial loss. It really isn’t that complicated a decision. In fact, it’s often not an actual decision at all. It just happens.

The simplest explanation for the difficulties that boys face in an education system that is dominated by women (teachers and administrators) is discrimination. And in the workplace, the government requires employers to report on male and female head counts, and promote women who are not qualified. I have seen receptionists with tattoos and no college degrees promoted to six-figure manager jobs in companies where I worked.

There is one more which to me was the most surprising one in the book – paternity fraud, and the laws that support paternity fraud:

Take the following cases of nonconsensual insemination: Nathaniel from California, age 15, had sex with 34-year-old Ricci, which, due to his age, was legally considered nonconsensual. Emile from Louisiana was visiting his parents in the hospital when a nurse offered him oral sex, if he wore a condom, which she conveniently offered to dispose of for him afterward. S. F. from Alabama passed out drunk at the home of a female friend and awoke undressed the following morning. In all three cases, including the one involving the minor, a woman got sperm and, nine months later, a child, and the man got ordered by a court of law to pay support for eighteen years.

Less devious, but similarly amiss, are those cases in which a man, having been betrayed by his wife or girlfriend, was nevertheless held financially responsible for a child genetically proven to be another man’s offspring. While not as sensational as sperm-jacking, it is another form of paternity extortion.

In each of those cases, the man was found liable to pay child support – including the case of the 15-year-old boy, who was forced to pay child support to his statutory rapist when he turned 18. This is how the court system works, and more and more men are understanding the risks.

I often encounter “pro-marriage” people while gathering stories for the blog. These pro-marriage people come in two varieties.

On the one end of the spectrum are people like Terrell Clemmons and Jennifer Roback Morse, who understand marriage, but who also understand the social changes that have made marriage unattractive for men. Both Clemmons and Morse have a background in STEM fields, so they are able to understand incentives and tradeoffs. They understand that society has to rollback the changes to education, divorce laws, etc. if they expect men to be interested in marriage again. They understand that men are not just accessories of women, but instead have their own desires, feelings and reasons for marrying.

On the other end of the spectrum are feminist men, who are not able to understand the changing incentives that face men in a world that has evolved under the influence of radical feminism. It is just simpler (less thinking) for these men to accept the radical feminism as a given, and then urge men to “man up”. I think a much better idea would be for the “man up” crowd to realize how marriage has changed, and how the schools and the workplace have changed, then make all of these things more attractive to men. It doesn’t do any good to try to “dare” men into jumping off a cliff. Men aren’t stupid, and they do what is in their own best interests. If the man-up crowd wants younger men to marry, then they need to change the incentives offered to men. And that means changing women first.

A MUST-SEE lecture based on Dr. Stephen C. Meyer’s book “Signature in the Cell“.

I highly recommend watching the lecture, and looking at the slides. The quality of the video and the content is first class. There is some Q&A (9 minutes) at the end of the lecture.

Topics:

• intelligent design is concerned with measuring the information-creating capabilities of natural forces like mutation and selection
• Darwinists think that random mutations and natural selection can explain the origin and diversification of living systems
• Darwinian mechanisms are capable of explaining small-scale adaptive changes within types of organisms
• but there is skepticism, even among naturalists, that Darwinian mechanisms can explain the origin of animal designs
• even if you concede that Darwinism can account for all of the basic animal body plans, there is still the problem of life’s origin
• can Darwinian mechanisms explain the origin of the first life? Is there a good naturalistic hypothesis to explain it?
• there are at least two places in the history of life where new information is needed: origin of life, and Cambrian explosion
• overview of the structure of DNA and protein synthesis (he has helpful pictures and he uses the snap lock blocks, too)
• the DNA molecule is composed of a sequence of bases that code for proteins, and the sequence is carefully selected to have biological function
• meaningful sequences of things like computer code, English sentences, etc. require an adequate cause
• it is very hard to arrive at a meaningful sequence of a non-trivial length by randomly picking symbols/letters
• although any random sequence of letters is improbable, the vast majority of sequences are gibberish/non-compiling code
• similarly, most random sequences of amino acids are lab-proven (Doug Axe’s work) to be non-functional gibberish
• the research showing this was conducted at Cambridge University and published in the Journal of Molecular Biology
• so, random mutation cannot explain the origin of the first living cell
• however, even natural selection coupled with random mutation cannot explain the first living cell
• there must already be replication in order for mutation and selection to work, so they can’t explain the first replicator
• but the origin of life is the origin of the first replicator – there is no replication prior to the first replicator
• the information in the first replicator cannot be explained by law, such as by chemical bonding affinities
• the amino acids are attached like magnetic letters on a refrigerator
• the magnetic force sticks the letters ON the fridge, but they don’t determine the specific sequence of the letters
• if laws did determine the sequence of letters, then the sequences would be repetitive
• the three materialist explanations – chance alone, chance and law, law alone – are not adequate to explain the effect
• the best explanation is that an intelligent cause is responsible for the biological explanation in the first replicator
• we know that intelligent causes can produce functional sequences of information, e.g. – English, Java code
• the structure and design of DNA matches up nicely with the design patterns used by software engineers (like WK!)

There are some very good tips in this lecture so that you will be able to explain intelligent design to others in simple ways, using everyday household items and children’s toys to symbolize the amino acids, proteins, sugar phosphate backbones, etc.

Proteins are constructed from a sequence of amino acids:

Proteins sticking onto the double helix structure of DNA:

I highly, highly recommend this lecture. You will be delighted and you will learn something.

Here is an article that gives a general overview of how intelligent design challenges. If you want to read something more detailed about the material that he is covering in the lecture above related to the origin of life, there is a pretty good article here.

There is a good breakdown of some of the slides with helpful flow charts here on Uncommon Descent.

Positive arguments for Christian theism

• The kalam cosmological argument and the Big Bang theory
• The fine-tuning argument from cosmological constants and quantities
• The origin of life, part 1 of 2: the building blocks of life
• The origin of life, part 2 of 2: biological information
• The sudden origin of phyla in the Cambrian explosion
• Galactic habitable zones and circumstellar habitable zones
• Irreducible complexity in molecular machines
• The creative limits of natural selection and random mutation
• Angus Menuge’s ontological argument from reason
• Alvin Plantinga’s epistemological argument from reason
• William Lane Craig’s moral argument
• The unexpected applicability of mathematics to nature

For fun, I’ve decided to publish the 2000-word first draft that I normally send to my 6 female editors, because sometimes it’s fun to let people know what I *really* think about things before my editors force me to make it more palatable.

We got a comment a while back that I thought was worth a response.

Let’s start with the comment:

My husband was a Narcissist. He slept all over the county and never worked a day in this marriage. Plus, He couldn’t decide if he was straight or gay. After my son finally left home I filed for divorce. I wish I did it sooner. Now he claims to be born again and wants to stay together. When is enough, enough?

We don’t know if this woman was a Christian, was chaste, and whether the man she chose was Christian or was chaste. All we know is that the man she chose was attractive enough to easily find other women who would have sex with him despite the fact that he was married. Whatever he has, it’s something that causes women who are not married to him to have sex with him. That’s who the divorced woman chose to marry. His “charm” wasn’t from his moral character or his deep knowledge of Christian theology and apologetics.

My first response to this was to put the responsibility on the person who had chosen the bad husband. After all, I reasoned, everyone who takes a massive step like marriage is obligated to investigate who it is they are marrying.

But when I said that, I got some responses from women that said that she wasn’t responsible for her poor choice of man, and that she was an innocent victim of his magical charming powers.

Here’s Lee:

A lot of time people don’t show their worst qualities until the relationship is firmly in place, and it starts coming out slowly. It’s not always as clear cut as a woman stupidly choosing an unsuitable husband who acted unsuitable from the get-go. I mean yeah, sometimes it’s obvious early on and the woman is just stupid/ blind/broken/other. But we should be careful to not assume, and careful to not make harsh judgments from our ignorance.

If dangers like infidelity are not “obvious” then it’s not the woman’s fault that she didn’t detect it. Apparently there is no way for the woman to detect it if it’s not obvious, so she’s not responsible.

And Mary:

Narcissists are skilled at charming and persuading people that they’re really great. And they’re skilled at convincing others that their misgivings are irrational fears. Unfortunately,there are a lot of people like that. Not saying that people (men AND women, btw!) don’t just sometimes choose stupidly, for bad reasons like “hotness” and excitement. But narcissists are a whole other kettle of fish. They can come out with a completely different personality once they’ve snagged their prey.

If a bad person is “skilled at charming”, then their victim has no way of evaluating them accurately. Basically, deciding who to marry is just an activity where you talk, and decide how you feel about that person’s talk. If the person is charming, then they make you feel good, and it’s rational to marry them. A lot of women express this as “I want a man who is confident”. It’s never been explained to me how “confidence” is any evidence that the man has an ability and a past pattern of self-control and fidelity.

And Sara:

Probably because narcissists can be very charming at first and easily win people over.

[…] What I was trying to say and the article pointed out is the power of narcissists is they can put people, especially women, under a spell of sorts. They are just so slick and charming that common sense goes right out the window. They don’t think to verify all these things that seem obvious because they are so captivated.

All that’s necessary to detect a charming narcissist is “common sense”. His suitability to do husband and father roles should be “obvious” from what he says and how he makes her feel.

So, let’s take a look at some tips for avoiding these charming narcissists who can convince you to marry them just with their words and the feelings they cause.

How to avoid marrying a charming narcissist who cheats on you

Here is some advice on how to avoid marrying a charming narcissist.

1. Evaluate a person based on objective evidence instead of how they make you feel with their words

There are a lot of lies coming out of the artists, actors, celebrities, etc. in this secular leftist culture that basically say that marriage is all about you and your feelings. If you prepared for marriage by watching movies made by pedophiles in Hollywood, and listening to music made by promiscuous musicians, and reading self-help fiction written by divorced spinsters, then you are not ready to detect a charming narcissist. Marriage is a practical enterprise, with distinct roles for husbands and wives that must be performed regardless of how either spouse feels. You need to understand and evaluate what behaviors are expected of husbands and wives in a marriage, and then look for evidence that the person you want to marry can perform those behaviors.

For example, if the behavior is fidelity, then the person should be able to demonstrate chastity and self-control during the courtship, and produce references from past girlfriends / boyfriends, and have written about chastity and self-control using research sources to explain the connection between premarital sex and marital instability. If you’re choosing with your feelings, and you haven’t done an analysis of marriage roles, and partner abilities, you’re headed for a disaster.

Just so you know, when I said this to some of the pro-irresponsibility, non-judgemental women I know, their response was to laugh in my face at the idea of asking someone’s previous partners about whether they were chaste and self-controlled. And this is why people are taken by surprise by the charming talk of narcissists. Feelings-oriented people today laugh at the idea of doing any evaluation, preferring to rely on their feelings. A lot of the failure to choose wisely is just down to people not understanding how the world works, then trying to manufacture a psycho-babble rationalization of why they screwed up.

When you’re hiring someone, you do a job interview, you test their skills, you contact their references, you do a drug test, a credit check, a criminal record check. And you have other skilled people sit in on the interviews and tests, in order to make sure that the person can really do the job they are being interviewed for. The marriage evaluation should include everything that the job interview includes as a minimum. Marriage is at least as complicated as choosing to hire someone for a job. If you aren’t doing the bare minimum of evaluating their education, career and finances, then you are setting yourself up for failure.

2. Learn what it takes to make morality rational, and then determine if your candidate is capable of being moral

Because marriage deals so much with moral obligations, it’s incumbent on you to read extensively on moral issues. You yourself should have developed worldview (through study and debate) that rationally grounds the minimum requirements for moral values and duties: 1) free will, 2) consciousness, 3) objective moral values, 4) objective moral duties, 5) a divine judge, 6) life after death. Why? Because doing the right thing isn’t something that you always feel like doing. When doing the right thing goes against your feelings, you will need to have a reason to act against your own self-interest. And that reason is going to be because the world is the sort of place where morality is real, and independent of your feelings, where you are a free moral agent, and where is a divine judge and an afterlife.

At the center of the ability to rationally ground morality is the ability to know God is real rationally, and to defend his existence using objective evidence and logical arguments. If you don’t know whether God exists based on logic and evidence, how will you evaluate whether someone else knows it? If you can’t rationally ground doing the right thing when it goes against your interest, then you won’t be able to know how to ask questions and investigate in order to decide whether someone else is moral or not.  Marrying someone who doesn’t believe in a moral lawgiver and a moral judge after death is as prudent to going into a city dump eating all your meals from what you find there.

In the specific case of fidelity, it’s important to remember that some people have goals and an understanding about how poor choices right now will make those goals more difficult to obtain. It’s easy to say that you want your spouse to be faithful. But what’s really needed is to measure what they are really trying to achieve in life, and whether they understand how infidelity would affect those plans. If you can’t see from their past decisions that they KNOW that 1) marriage and family are important enough to sacrifice for and 2) that they understand and apply the research that shows what decisions helps to make a marriage last (e.g. – no premarital sex), then, they don’t really have the goals and the information that you want in a marriage partner.

UPDATE:

3. Lindsay the marriage expert says to make sure that your prospective mate is being evaluated by older, wiser people who love you:

A lot of people (both men and women) don’t know how to look for nasty character flaws lurking under a pleasant front. That’s a skill worth developing. But this is also why young people should seek advice from parents and other mentor figures who may see problems they don’t see. If you carry on your relationship in a vacuum, just you and the boyfriend/girlfriend, they can probably trick you into thinking they’re awesome because they have an audience of one. They pour on the charm to their intended victim. The discerning may be able to read the signs, but many cannot. But when you meet their family and friends (and past boyfriends/girlfriends) and he (or she) spends time around your family and friends so they can evaluate this person, he can’t fool all of them. He can’t keep up a false front with that many people. So when you have loved ones who are warning you that they see something wrong with this person, listen to them, even if you don’t see it. You may not be able to see it because you’re being fooled. That’s why you need the input of the people who love you. This is the most important factor to avoid being fooled by a charming narcissist. Get other people you trust evaluating this person too. Don’t rely just on your own perception.

I mentored a girl who was raised Christian who rebelled against her (inadequate) parents who ended up shacked up with an atheist after going wild in college. She could have used this advice, but she would have had to look for people other than her parents. Having said that, she was very wild, reckless and impulsive, and her tendency was to follow her heart, and shove aside people who disagreed with her. Don’t be like her – if you can’t get advice from parents, then find some other older, wiser people who have succeeded at marriage. I was actually prevented from a bad marriage precisely because my wise female advisors insisted that I pay attention to a woman’s actions, which completely contradicted the portrait she painted of herself to me with her words. So, this is good advice for men, too.

From the New York Daily News. (Printable version linked)

Excerpt:

Little Zhuangzhuang, a newborn elephant at a wildlife refuge in China, was inconsolable after his mother rejected him and then tried to stomp him to death.

Tears streamed down his gray trunk for five hours as zookeepers struggled to comfort the baby elephant.

They initially thought it was an accident when the mom stepped on him after giving birth, according to the Central European News agency.

Employees removed him, cleaned him up and treated his injuries, then reunited the baby with his momma.

But she was having none of it, and began stomping him again.

So the game keepers stepped in once more and permanently separated the two.

“We don’t know why the mother turned on her calf but we couldn’t take a chance,” an employee told CEN.

“The calf was very upset and he was crying for five hours before he could be consoled,” he said.

“He couldn’t bear to be parted from his mother and it was his mother who was trying to kill him.”

The petite pachyderm, born in August, is now doing well. The zookeeper who rescued him from his violent mother adopted him and helped him thrive at the Shendiaoshan wild animal reserve in Rong-cheng, China.

I found another photo of the baby elephant here:

So, in this post, I wanted to take about the duty that parents have to their children.

I guess a lot of my views on ethics are rooted in the obvious needs that children have. When I look at an unborn baby, I can tell what it needs. So, I am careful not to cause a pregnancy before I can supply its needs. The needs of the little unborn creature are driving these moral boundaries on me. And the same with born children. I oppose gay marriage because when I look at little children, I want them to have a stable environment to grow up in with a mother and father who are biologically related to them (in the best case). I permit lots of arrangements, but I promote one arrangement over the others because that’s what’s best for children. Anyone can look at unborn and born children and see that, just like anyone can look at a crying baby elephant and understand – “I have to govern my behavior so that I don’t hurt you”. If that means cutting off the premarital sex and making decisions that are likely to produce a stable marriage, then that’s what we should do.

Children cry too, you know. They cry when we hurt them. They cry when we make bad decisions and when we don’t provide them with what they need. Children need mothers and fathers who care about them. Making a safe environment for a child isn’t an accident. It isn’t random and unpredictable. We have to control our desires before we have children, so that we provide children with what they need. It would be nice if men and women were more thoughtful and unselfish about children and marriage before they started in with sex.

In a previous post, I  contrasted Trump and Biden on foreign policy. Trump was obviously a lot more serious about protecting taxpayers from violent criminals and from terrorists. You might remember how Obama pulled out of Iraq and allowed ISIS to take a lot of ground. Trump got them back under control. And now Biden is repeating the same mistake with Afghanistan and the Taliban.

One thing that taxpayers should care about is the cost for creating crises. We have two going on right now. The first is at the border, where Biden is letting in unvaccinated illegal immigrants. I wrote before about how taxpayers get the bill for that. The second is in Afghanistan, where Biden’s decision to pull out has created a refugee crisis. But Biden has an answer for that – he’s going to let in tens and thousands of refugees who can’t speak English or pay their own way. These are not skilled immigrants who play by the rules.

So who is going to pay the bill? Biden? My friend Neil did a survey of Democrats to see how much they give to charity. Biden doesn’t give much:

And consider how these Liberal heroes want to take your money to “give” to others but can’t manage any real and significant giving themselves.  If Joe Biden, for example, can’t afford to give more than 0.2% over his roughly quarter-million-dollar income (that is point-two percent, not two percent — only $369 per year), then how could he possibly afford to pay increased taxes?  Oh yeah, there will be loopholes for him and those who vote for the tax increase bills.

His 0.2% giving and the percentages below are even worse than they look because they are based on Adjusted Gross Income, which is typically much less than gross income.

Biden isn’t going to pay for this. So who will?

The Washington Examiner explains:

The expected welcoming of 65,000 Afghan refugees by the Biden administration is likely to hit local welfare agencies hard if the current use of Medicaid and food stamps by those already here is any indication.

In a thorough review of the 133,000 Afghan migrants already in the United States, the Center for 1mmigration Studies found that they are nearly three times more likely to tap into welfare than native-born Americans.

What’s more, the share of those in poverty is about twice as high as native-born Americans, according to census data used in the new report.

[…]“The Census Bureau data analyzed in this report indicates that a large share of Afghans in this country have modest levels of education, with many living in or near poverty and dependent on the welfare system. It seems likely that a large share of Afghans allowed into the United States in the future will also struggle in a similar manner,” said the report’s authors Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler.

So far, following the bungled military withdrawal from Afghanistan, about 24,000 refugees have arrived in the U.S., and about another 45,000 are set to enter, according to the State Department.

The article notes:

The educational level of Afghan immigrants has fallen both in absolute terms and relative to the native-born. The share of Afghans (25-64) with at least a bachelor’s degree fell from 30% in 2000 to 26% in 2019, while increasing from 27% to 35% for natives.

Many Afghans have low incomes. Of persons in households headed by Afghan immigrants, 25% live in poverty — more than twice the rate of 12% for people in households headed by native-born Americans.

In 2019, 65% of Afghan households used at least one major [welfare] program (cash, food stamps, or Medicaid), while the usage rate in native-born households was 24%.

The Democrats aren’t kidding about making taxpayers pay for their “generosity”. Daily Wire says they have a plan to come up with the money:

Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee have drafted a proposal that would hit the American public with an additional $2.9 trillion over 10 years in tax revenue.

And the refugees will get “quick citizenship” too, according to Breitbart:

President Joe Biden’s congressional budget request would offer tens of thousands of Afghans arriving in the United States a host of welfare and quick naturalized American citizenship, a new analysis states.

The analysis, conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and shared with Breitbart News, details Biden’s request to Congress for $6.4 billion in American taxpayer money to resettle 95,000 Afghans across the U.S. over the next year.

Specifically, Biden’s plan would provide an “expedited path to citizenship” to tens of thousands of Afghans who arrived via “humanitarian parole” by giving them green cards after just a year of residing in the U.S.

Then, after only a few years of holding a green card, those Afghans would be eligible to apply for naturalized U.S. citizenship. The FAIR analysis suggests that the Biden administration will fast-track the citizenship process by backdating green cards for Afghans to the date when they initially secured parole.

In a previous post, I talked about feelings-based voters. These voters listen to advertisements and biased news media, and they form an impression about which candidate will make them feel good about themselves, and look good to others. They really shouldn’t be voting at all, but they have so much confidence in their feelings and intuitions, that they do it anyway.

Next time, we need to fight the feelings-based voters a little harder, OK? We need to judge them a little harsher. We need to shame them a little more with the facts. And we need to be a little less bothered by their tears. Because we don’t have enough money to keep electing Democrats. I have other things to do with what I earn than spending it cleaning up Sleepy Joe’s messes. And so do you.

I have an ongoing disagreement with a female friend about how to restore marriage and family. We both agree on the harm that is done to children by the redefining marriage to remove the traditional marriage norms of exclusivity, permanence, heterosexual romance, etc. But she thinks that it’s better to approach men and get them to change, whereas I think it’s better to approach women and get them to change.

So, in a previous post, I argued that we should focus on telling women to stop choosing hot bad boys, and trying to get them to commit. I said this because I don’t think you can change the hot bad boys and make them commit. They want s3x, and that’s what they are getting when the normal women throw s3x at them. They don’t have to commit if they get what they want before committing.

But is there anything constructive to say to the normal men, who are not getting s3x thrown at them from many different women? Well, yes. There is something to say to them. Although they are not smashing up families, they are doing something wrong. They are giving attention to the wrong sort of women, for the wrong reasons.

Consider this article about the web site Only Fans, from Business Insider:

OnlyFans, the subscription-based adult-entertainment site, boomed during the pandemic.

Revenue at the UK-based company grew by 553% in the year to November 2020, and users spent £1.7 billion ($2.36 billion) on the site, a seven-fold increase, the Financial Times reported.

The site allows creators to sell video clips, photos, and messages directly to subscribers on a pay-per-view basis, with OnlyFans taking a 20% cut. Customers pay between $5 and $50 per month.

User numbers grew from 20 million before the pandemic to more than 120 million over 12 months, as adult entertainers and their customers signed up during lockdowns to share X-rated content.

Only Fans is a web site where the most impulsive and reckless women make easy money by showing off their bodies and performing s3xual activities for subscribers. It’s voluntary, not coerced. They want to get rich quick without having to care about doing well in school or getting a job. They aren’t interested in marriage, because they know that good men don’t marry women who make themselves available to millions of other men. They are not conservative. They don’t want men to lead them. They don’t read anything that makes them wiser or more noble. Men shouldn’t be paying women like this any money, or even giving them attention.

I want normal guys to give better women their time and money – preferably in a relationship, but at least in a friendship. Even if the majority of women are using their young and pretty years to try to land hot bad boys, there are always a minority of women who are busy with better things, like doing computer science degrees or reading Nancy Pearcey books. I think that the normal guys should be paying attention to them.

In fact, if I could just convince these normal guys to read more useful stuff, I’m sure they would realize that there is a lot more to a woman than youth and beauty. They would probably find the Only Fans girls pretty repulsive, once they realized how much different women can be if they are trained and prepared to commit to men and respect them. And by trained, I don’t mean “I’m a Christian, you can’t judge my past”. I mean bookshelves of good books, read and highlighted. I mean a public record of conservative Christian achievements.

If normal guys can’t find good young women to pay attention to, then they should try to make friends with older, wiser good women. That way, they won’t be lonely, they will learn something from the older more conservative women , and they will avoid making the wrong sort of women richer. I used to have a half-dozen older women advisors who would fill my head with wisdom chirped out in their cute girly voices whenever I wanted. Getting wisdom from conservative older Christian women is a lot better for me than throwing dollar bills at online strippers, who take your money, but have no interest in getting ready for marriage.

And if a younger woman came along who read good books, was conservative, and wanted marriage and children, you can start the marriage evaluation process. The important thing is to have the money to close the deal on a marriage if you find a real marriage candidate, which is why you don’t waste money on Only Fans women. Good women are the ones who trust you, respect your leadership, and achieve things when you lead and support them.

I don’t really care much about the Only Fans women, but I don’t think that getting attention and money for how you look is good for them in the long run. Women who get attention for stripping and doing s3x acts don’t learn anything that’s useful for them to be content in a stable marriage. They get used to seeing men at their worst, and they lose their ability to trust and bond with one guy. Giving them money to do something temporary that cannot be sustained as their looks fade isn’t good for them either. I don’t think it’s good for society long-term to have a bunch of shallow, immature women voting for bigger government and less liberty when they reach age 32 and can’t find good men to marry them.

Basically, what I would like is for men and women to get better at understanding moral character, religion and relationships, so they can choose quality relationship partners. And the best way to do that is what the Bible recommends – by renewing your mind. And how do you renew your mind? Well, you have to convince yourself that the world works a certain way. And how do you do that? By reading difficult challenging books that show you how to achieve the goals that are best for you, even if you have to sacrifice happiness in the short term. Men and women need to read better books.

I’m going to keep recommending to young people that they try to get out of the chaos of this generation by reading better books. Start with Philippians and John in the Bible. Then, I like “Is God Just a Human Invention?” by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow, and “Total Truth” by Nancy Pearcey. Read some Thomas Sowell economics, and some military history. There is no shortcut to valuing good things, and making good decisions. You have to change your mind by keep out the culture’s junk, and putting in the good stuff.

I sometimes feel that I am very weird compared to other people when it comes to work. I have this terrible fear that the secular left will force me to choose between being a Christian and being able to earn enough money to not starve. In fact, this is one of the reasons why I never married, and never had children. And it’s only going to become more difficult for younger Christian men.

Here’s an interesting article that Randy posted from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

It says:

CEOs tripping over themselves to prove how “woke” they are has become de rigueur, but the news that American Express subjected its employees last year to what can only be described as Marxist “re-education” sessions has struck a chord—and rightly so.

[…]It would seem, though, that AmEx doesn’t want to hear any dissent. One ex-employee, Brian Netzel, just filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that he was fired for voicing his opposition to these sessions.

I’ve been blogging about how people get fired for being conservative and/or Christian from all sorts of big corporations, and not just in Big Tech. Even with good technical skills, it’s challenging to find a job where you can just earn money, and not have to deny your own convictions and worldview. That sort of thing is common in secular left regimes of the past and present, but I’m still getting used to it.

More:

As one of America’s top investigative journalists Christopher Rufo has reported, American Express has demanded that its employees map out their degree of privilege, determine whether they are in an oppressor or marginalized category, and then asks whites to act subordinately to members of minority categories.

AmEx’s workforce has even heard speakers demand that the company discriminate racially by charging black customers lower premiums.

Moreover, the company’s handouts lead employees to the group Critical Resistance, which advocates for the dismantling not just of police but also of the prisons system.

[…]Critical Resistance was founded in 1998 by three committed Marxists: Angela Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore and Rose Braz. Davis herself ran twice as Vice President on the Communist Party ticket.

American Express also brought in Khalil Muhammad to harangue its long-suffering employees about how capitalism is racist and steeped in “racist logics and forms of domination.”

I’ve written before about how the problems and solutions of BLM / CRT people are different than the problems and solutions of Christians. No Bible-believing Christian can sign off on BLM / CRT. Destroying the family and implementing Marxism is not the Bible’s approach to the problems of wealth and poverty.

How are Christian men who reject BLM / CRT problems and solutions for the Bible supposed to survive in corporate America? And if they can’t keep a job, then how can they marry and afford to raise children? It seems like the man would have to compromise.

For example, a Christian man who marries and has children might:

• mitigate job loss risks by cutting back on charitable giving
• not have a public ministry under his own name
• not participate in any serious discussions at work
• learn to compartmentalize their faith, which can lead to secularism and eventually atheism (I’ve seen this happen)
• be exposed to harm from leftists in community and schools

What makes this situation even harder is that the Christian man is all alone. Most churches have embraced a new feelings-based version of Christianity that agrees with the priorities of woke corporate America. Christians no longer defend the Bible. Instead, the new feelings-based Christianity says that people can do whatever they want and never be judging. There is a horror of making anyone feel bad by not agreeing with them about following their heart. And if that blows up in their faces, then it’s the fault of other people who made better decisions and got better results. This is the new feelings-based Christianity – moral standards and accountability are out, affirmation and non-judgement are in.

The new Christianity teaches that you determine God’s will for your life through your feelings. If it doesn’t work out, then no one can judge you or teach you to do better – because that might make you feel bad. And if you happen to have some abortions or fatherless kids along the way? Well too bad for them – we wouldn’t want to lose our non-Christian friends by warning them about the likely consequences of their actions. The goal of the new Christianity is to never tell anyone that they should obey God instead of doing what they feel like doing. The goal is to feel good and be liked.

As a Christian man, what I have learned is that if I try to promote a Bible-based moral view in public, that not only will there be trouble from the corporate world, but there will also be trouble from the no-judgment Christians. In the corporate world, telling people that their problems are the result of their own actions will get you fired. In the church world, telling a single mother that her problems are the result of her own choices will get you thrown out of the church. You can’t tell people anything that places the blame for their actions on them, even if the Bible agrees with you.

So, as a Christian man, you have to lie about your convictions at work to keep your job, and you have to lie about your convictions in church to avoid the wrath of the feelings-Christians. You can’t teach any exclusive theological truth claims. That’s intolerant. You can’t teach any exclusive moral truth claims. That’s lacking compassion. Just where are Christian men supposed to go to say what we really think?

The no-judgement Christian crowd needs to understand that in order for Bible-based men to marry, they have to be able to hold down a job. We don’t take on additional responsibilities like marriage and children when it is hard enough already to put food on the table for ourselves and still be faithful to the Bible. If feelings-based people want Christian men to marry, they better dump this new feelings-based version of Christianity, and start doing actions to make it safe for Christian men to earn a living without compromising our convictions. Otherwise, Christian women can marry men who don’t have those convictions. See if that works out.

Have you ever heard Gary Habermas, Michael Licona or William Lane Craig defend the resurrection of Jesus in a debate by saying that the resurrection is the best explanation for the “minimal facts” about Jesus? The lists of minimal facts that they use are typically agreed to by their opponents during the debates. Minimal facts are the parts of the New Testament that meet a set of strict historical criteria. These are the facts that skeptical historians agree with, totally apart from any religious beliefs.

So what are the criteria that skeptical historians use to derive a list of minimal facts about Jesus?

Dr. Craig explains them in this article.

Excerpt:

The other way, more influential in contemporary New Testament scholarship, is to establish specific facts about Jesus without assuming the general reliability of the Gospels. The key here are the so-called “Criteria of Authenticity” which enable us to establish specific sayings or events in Jesus’ life as historical. Scholars involved in the quest of the historical Jesus have enunciated a number of these critieria for detecting historically authentic features of Jesus, such as dissimilarity to Christian teaching, multiple attestation, linguistic semitisms, traces of Palestinian milieu, retention of embarrassing material, coherence with other authentic material, and so forth.

It is somewhat misleading to call these “criteria,” for they aim at stating sufficient, not necessary, conditions of historicity. This is easy to see: suppose a saying is multiply attested and dissimilar but not embarrassing. If embarrassment were a necessary condition of authenticity, then the saying would have to be deemed inauthentic, which is wrong-headed, since its multiple attestation and dissimilarity are sufficient for authenticity. Of course, the criteria are defeasible, meaning that they are not infallible guides to authenticity. They might be better called “Indications of Authenticity” or “Signs of Credibility.”

In point of fact, what the criteria really amount to are statements about the effect of certain types of evidence upon the probability of various sayings or events in Jesus’ life. For some saying or event S and evidence of a certain type E, the criteria would state that, all things being equal, the probability of S given E is greater than the probability of S on our background knowledge alone. So, for example, all else being equal, the probability of some event or saying is greater given its multiple attestation than it would have been without it.

What are some of the factors that might serve the role of E in increasing the probability of some saying or event S? The following are some of the most important:

(1) Historical congruence: S fits in with known historical facts concerning the context in which S is said to have occurred.

(2) Independent, early attestation: S appears in multiple sources which are near to the time at which S is alleged to have occurred and which depend neither upon each other nor a common source.

(3) Embarrassment: S is awkward or counter-productive for the persons who serve as the source of information for S.

(4) Dissimilarity: S is unlike antecedent Jewish thought-forms and/or unlike subsequent Christian thought-forms.

(5) Semitisms: traces in the narrative of Aramaic or Hebrew linguistic forms.

(6) Coherence: S is consistent with already established facts about Jesus.

For a good discussion of these factors see Robert Stein, “The ‘Criteria’ for Authenticity,” in Gospel Perspectives I, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1980), pp. 225-63.

Notice that these “criteria” do not presuppose the general reliability of the Gospels. Rather they focus on a particular saying or event and give evidence for thinking that specific element of Jesus’ life to be historical, regardless of the general reliability of the document in which the particular saying or event is reported. These same “criteria” are thus applicable to reports of Jesus found in the apocryphal Gospels, or rabbinical writings, or even the Qur’an. Of course, if the Gospels can be shown to be generally reliable documents, so much the better! But the “criteria” do not depend on any such presupposition. They serve to help spot historical kernels even in the midst of historical chaff. Thus we need not concern ourselves with defending the Gospels’ every claim attributed to Jesus in the gospels; the question will be whether we can establish enough about Jesus to make faith in him reasonable.

And you can see Dr. Craig using these criteria to defend minimal facts in his debates. For example, in his debate with Ehrman, he alludes to the criteria when making his case for the empty tomb.

Here, he uses multiple attestation and the criteria of embarrassment:

Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following:

1. The empty tomb is also multiply attested by independent, early sources.

Mark’s source didn’t end with the burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial story verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John have independent sources about the empty tomb; it’s also mentioned in the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36); and it’s implied by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have again multiple, early, independent attestation of the fact of the empty tomb.

2. The tomb was discovered empty by women.

In patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. Any later legendary account would certainly have made male disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact.

There are actually a few more reasons for believing in the empty tomb that he doesn’t go into in the debate, but you can find them in his written work. For example, in his essay on Gerd Ludemann’s “vision” hypothesis. That essay covers the reasons for all four of his minimal facts.

So, if you are going to talk about the resurrection with a skeptic, you don’t want to invoke the Bible as some sort of inerrant/inspired Holy Book. You want to look at it as a historical book, and use historical criteria to get to some facts that critical historians would accept. From that, it’s possible to make a case for the resurrection, which is the guarantee that the words of Jesus are authoritative. Including the words of Jesus where he describes the Bible as a whole as God’s revelation of Himself to his creatures.

Here is the approach I use when talking to non-Christian co-workers:

1. Explain the criteria that historians use to get their lists of minimal facts
2. Explain your list of minimal facts
3. Defend your list of minimal facts using the criteria
4. Cite skeptics who admit to each of your minimal facts, to show that they are widely accepted
5. List some parts of the Bible that don’t pass the criteria (e.g. – guard at the tomb, Matthew earthquake)
6. Explain why those parts don’t pass the criteria, and explain that they are not part of your case
7. Challenge your opponent to either deny some or all the facts, or propose a naturalistic alternative that explains the facts better than the resurrection
8. Don’t let your opponent attack any of your minimal facts by attacking other parts of the Bible (e.g. – the number of angels being one or two, etc.)

And remember that there is no good case for the resurrection that does not make heavy use of the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. That passages is universally accepted as early, eyewitness testimony from Paul, and represents the core of early Christian beliefs about the death and resurrection of Jesus. Everyone who takes evidence seriously has to account for that early creed, which passes the historical tests I outlined above.

The best essay on the minimal facts criteria that I’ve read is the one by Robert H. Stein in “Contending with Christianity’s Critics“. It’s a good short essay that goes over all the historical criteria that are used to derive the short list of facts from which we infer the conclusion “God raised Jesus from the dead”. That whole book is really very, very good.

Originally posted 10/26/2020. Re-posting for 9/11 anniversary. We used to have a president who was good at foreign policy. Now we don’t.

Christians often like to try to make elections about a single issue, typically abortion. I’m pro-life, and opposing abortion is important to me. However, my goal is to get the election result I want in the real world, not just to be right in my own mind. So, I think conservatives should be able to discuss many different issues, like economics, energy, job creation, health care, education, etc. persuasively.

One issue you can use to convince people to vote Republican is foreign policy. Has Trump got a good record on foreign policy? Is it better or worse than Joe Biden’s record? Let’s take a look.

It’s always a good thing when a leader is able to make peace between warring countries. Trump is actually really good at this.

The Federalist explains:

Sudan will be removed from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list and will begin a partnership with the United States and Israel, President Donald Trump announced on Friday.

[…]The agreement comes just weeks after Trump secured two other historic peace deals in the Middle East through the signing of The Abraham Accords with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, which established full diplomatic relations of the countries with Israel. These deals facilitated by the Trump Administration are meant to bring “stability, security, and prosperity” in the region.

[…]Trump granted Sudan’s removal from the terrorism list after the nation paid “$335 million to compensate American victims of past terror attacks and their families.”

In addition to those deals, Trump’s diplomatic team just brokered a deal to get Armenia and Azerbaijan to stop shooting at each other.

The Wall Street Journal explains:

Armenia and Azerbaijan, which have spent nearly a month engaged in a violent conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, have agreed to a humanitarian cease-fire, the U.S. and the two Caucasus neighbors said Sunday afternoon.

The cease-fire, based on commitments made in Moscow earlier this month, will take effect at 8 a.m. local time on Monday, according to the joint announcement.

[…]Sunday’s announcement follows a series of meetings in Washington aimed at preventing the long-simmering conflict between the two former Soviet republics from expanding to the wider region.

Trump didn’t start any new wars in his first 4-year term, and kept his promises about bringing troops home. That’s a lot better than Joe Biden, who was VP during THREE failed US interventions in Egypt, Libya and Syria. And the Obama-Biden administration pulled us out of Iraq, which caused the rise of the Islamic State caliphate. Trump actually had to clean up the ISIS mess, and he did: reducing them from a massive area of influence to a tiny area of influence.

Trump also likes to deter Iran, the number one sponsor of terrorism in the world. He pulled out of the Iran deal, which Biden championed. That deal gave Iran pallets of cash, and allowed them to work on developing nuclear weapons. In contrast, Trump has been very tough with Iran.

The Washington Examiner explains:

Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian military general who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Iraq on Thursday, was responsible for the deaths of over 600 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

“General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more,” the Pentagon said. “He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months — including the attack on December 27th — culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.”

The Department of Defense added that the strike against Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani, the leader of the Quds Force, the extraterritorial wing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, “was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”

And just this past week, Trump continued to sanction Al Qaeda leaders.

Sky News reports:

The man believed to be al Qaeda’s second-in-command has been killed, Afghan security forces have said.

Abu Muhsin al-Masri was on the FBI’s most wanted list and was charged with conspiracy to kill US nationals.

[…][Al-Masri] had also been charged in America with providing material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organisation.

Very good, and much better than Joe Biden, who seems to be always wrong on foreign policy.

The Washington Examiner again:

In his 2014 memoir, Duty, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates famously shared his view that Biden, then the vice president and previously chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had been wrong about “nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

[…]Early on Jan. 7, Biden was savaging Trump as “dangerously incompetent” for the strike that had killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps terrorist leader Gen. Qassem Soleimani a few days earlier. Biden claimed that Trump was close to starting an “endless war in the Middle East” and that “this outcome of strategic setbacks, heightened threats, chants of ‘Death to America’ once more echoing across the Middle East, [and] Iran and its allies vowing revenge — this was avoidable.”

None of Biden’s predictions ever materialized, because he knows less about foreign policy than my keyboard.

Biden is terrible on Osama Bin Laden and the Cold War:

This is the man who once tried to dissuade Obama from his operation against terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden; who supported the Iraq War and said in 2003, “I voted to go into Iraq, and I’d vote to do it again”; and who vocally opposed President Ronald Reagan’s military buildup and the Strategic Defense Initiative, which helped bring down the Soviet Union.

The Obama/Biden administration created ISIS by retreating from Iraq:

Biden claimed he had atoned for his Iraq War vote by spearheading Obama’s 2011-2012 withdrawal from Iraq. But that withdrawal was a disaster, and it led to the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS).

Joe Biden was also part of the administration that traded FIVE top Taliban commanders for Private Bowe Bergdahl. Bergdahl put his fellow soldiers in danger when they had to go searching for him, after he deserted his post. And then there was the Benghazi scandal, when the Obama-Biden administration abandoned their people when they came under attack by terrorists. Then they blamed the attack on a YouTube video.

We shouldn’t put someone with a bad record on foreign policy – Biden – into the White House, when we can have someone with a good record on foreign policy instead: Trump.

During the 2020 election, a number of prominent evangelical Christian leaders came forward to say how Joe Biden would make a much better president than Donald Trump. They liked everything about Joe Biden. They liked opening the borders. They liked giving Afghanistan to the Taliban. They liked nuclear deals with Iran. They liked redistribution of wealth by a centralized secular government.

But what they like best of all was abortion. Abortion, they said, is the most wonderful thing in the world, because it allows allow young people to have reckless irresponsible sex, then kill any children that result from that, so the adults can be happy. This is feminism, and feminism is so good!

Evangelical leaders are especially happy with their boy Joe Biden this week.

The Federalist explains:

President Joe Biden’s Justice Department is suing the state of Texas over its newest pro-life law, which prohibits killing babies in utero if they have a detectable heartbeat.

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the lawsuit on Thursday and asked an Austin district court to block Texas “officers, employees and agents, including private parties who would bring suit under the law” from implementing it.

“The act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent,” Garland said on Thursday.

Evangelicals for Biden like David French, Russell Moore, Beth Moore, etc. supported Biden when they attacked Trump over and over during his first term. They liked Biden, and they got Biden.

Why did they attack him? Let’s look at his record and see if we can find out what made them so angry.

Life News has something interesting:

A nationally-recognized scientist who has testified in support of unborn babies is President Donald Trump’s new choice for the National Science Board.

Dr. Maureen Condic, an associate professor at the University of Utah who specializes in neurobiology, is widely known for her work on spinal cord repair, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. Earlier this month, Trump chose her to fill one of the 25 seats on the National Science Board.

[…]She obtained her Ph.D. from University of California, Berkeley, and is a widely published scientist whose works have appeared in a variety of peer-reviewed journals.

Her work has been instrumental to the pro-life movement in its pursuit to protect unborn babies from painful abortions. In 2003, Condic testified before Congress that unborn babies have the capacity to feel pain as early as eight weeks.

What do evangelicals for Biden think about her? You can find out by looking at whether they supported Trump or Biden during the election.

Here’s another article from Daily Wire about more Biden policies:

President Joe Biden on Tuesday filed an appeal seeking to force doctors and hospitals to perform potentially harmful transgender-related procedures and surgeries even if they hold objections.

As outlined by BECKET Law’s Luke Goodrich, a court in January struck down the administration’s move to punish doctors who don’t perform transgender-related procedures for supposed “sex discrimination.” Biden on Tuesday officially appealed the ruling.

According to the Erase Religious Liberty Council, a pro-Biden group of pious “Christian” leaders, these Biden actions are wonderful! Definitely worth supporting. This is what they wanted.

Life News reported on another reason evangelical leaders were for Biden:

On Wednesday, the Biden administration released a rule that will force taxpayers to fund the abortion industry through the Title X family planning program.

The rule, issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, will end a pro-life regulation that President Donald Trump put in place to ensure Title X grants are not used to subsidize the killing of unborn babies in abortions.

What about Trump? Well, he was endorsed by every pro-life organization in the country.

Why? Because of his demonstrated achievements:

Here’s an article posted by the Susan B. Anthony List – the pro-life group that is most concerned with law, policy and judicial appointments:

Appointed Pro-Life Judges

In April, 2017, Judge Neil Gorsuch was successfully confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And in October, 2018, Judge Brett Kavanaugh was successfully confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. To date, 157 of President Trump’s judicial nominees have been confirmed, including two Supreme Court justices, forty-three U.S. Courts of Appeals judges, and one hundred thirteen District Court judges.

Permitted States to Defund Planned Parenthood of Title X Funds

In April 2017, Congress sent a bill to President Trump’s desk that permits states to defund Planned Parenthood of Title X family planning funds passed in Congress. President Trump signed the bill which reverses an Obama-era rule that disbarred states from doing so. Because this was passed using the Congressional Review Act, future Administrations cannot enact a similar rule to Obama’s.

Stopped Tax Dollars Funding Abortion Overseas

President Trump not only reinstated the Mexico City Policy, but expanded it to the new Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance program. This new policy ensures that our tax dollars are protected from funding the abortion industry overseas across ALL global health spending, not just family planning dollars. The Bush-era Mexico City Policy protected roughly $500 million in spending – the new Trump policy protects over $8.8 billion overseas aid from funding abortion.

Defunded the Pro-Abortion UNFPA

The UNFPA has long been complicit in China’s oppressive population control activities, including birth limitation policies and forced abortions. President Trump’s State Department cut U.S. Taxpayer funding to the UNFPA.

Required Health Insurance Companies to Disclose if Plans Cover Abortion

The Trump Administration Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) issued a rule requiring that insurers specify in each plan Summary of Benefits whether the plan covers abortion.

Settlements & New Rule Regarding HHS Mandate

The Departments of HHS, Treasury, and Labor issued two interim final rules, which means they took effect immediately, while allowing a comment period, that provide permanent, enforceable relief from the previous HHS mandate for both religious objectors, such as Little Sisters of the Poor, and moral objectors, such as Susan B. Anthony List. The new rule also exempts private employers and educational institutions that have sincerely held religious beliefs or moral objections against providing contraceptives or abortifacient drugs.

New Office for Conscience Protection at HHS

In May 2019, the Trump administration finalized new regulations to strengthen enforcement of federal laws protecting the conscience rights of health care workers who do not want to participate in abortion. The regulations clarify what recourse is available to victims of discrimination under the law and what penalties the HHS Office of Civil Rights may enforce for violations. Additionally, in January 2018, the Department of Health & Human Services announced the creation of the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division within the Office for Civil Rights. This new office works to protect health care professionals who do not want to participate in abortion. In May, 2019, HHS issued a proposed rule amending Obama-era regulations, clarifying that Section 1557 shall not force a recipient of federal funding to provide or pay for an abortion. It shall also be consistent with the First Amendment and with pro-life provisions, conscience provisions and religious liberty protections in current law.

Allowed States to Defund Planned Parenthood of Medicaid Funds

The Obama administration attempted to prevent states from defunding Planned Parenthood of Medicaid dollars, issuing guidance claiming this may be a violation of federal law. In January 2018, the Trump administration rescinded this guidance, allowing states to defund Planned Parenthood of Medicaid dollars as they see fit.

Cut Planned Parenthood’s Tax Funding by up to $60 Million

In February, 2019, the Trump administration finalized the Protect Life Rule to redirect Title X family planning program funds away from the abortion industry. The rule advances President Trump’s promise to stop taxpayer funding of abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood, who will no longer receive Title X funding if they choose not to comply.

Canceled Huge Contract for Taxpayer-Funded Experimentation with Body Parts of Aborted Babies

In June, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced they would not renew a major contract with the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) to fund research using the body parts of aborted babies. (learn more)

What did the evangelicals for Biden think about all of this? Well, judging from their support for Biden during the 2020 election, they opposed every single one of these actions.

Now, we are finding out what they supported. They supported a secular government overriding states that try to protect unborn children from being murdered. That’s what it means to be an “evangelical for Biden”. So, during the next election, be very careful about what you hear from the big, charismatic evangelical speakers. Instead, focus in on the pro-life achievements of the candidates, and pick the candidate who will get pro-life results. The kind of results that Trump got when he was President.

In this post, I’ll look at the problem of men become less interested in education and careers. I’ll also give two reasons why this is happening, and then suggest some solutions to the problem.

Let’s start with an article from the Wall Street Journal, entitled “A Generation of American Men Give Up on College”.

It says:

At the close of the 2020-21 academic year, women made up 59.5% of college students, an all-time high, and men 40.5%, according to enrollment data from the National Student Clearinghouse, a nonprofit research group. U.S. colleges and universities had 1.5 million fewer students compared with five years ago, and men accounted for 71% of the decline.

The article notes that there is massive spending by college administrators on far-left causes, such as women’s rights, but few colleges want to do anything about the lack of men on campus.

No college wants to tackle the issue under the glare of gender politics, said… [an] enrollment consultant. The conventional view on campuses, she said, is that “men make more money, men hold higher positions, why should we give them a little shove from high school to college?”

Here’s some data from The U.S. Department of Education, via the American Enterprise Institute:

Let’s see two reasons why this is happening.

Discrimination

One reason why men may be giving up on college is because they face discrimination in day care and schools.

For example:

A new study of nearly 6,000 elementary school children has found that boys are discriminated against beginning in kindergarten. Christopher Cornwell, an economics professor at the University of Georgia, says that ”gender disparities in teacher grades start early and uniformly favor girls.”

Despite having higher scores on standardized tests, boys get lower grades than girls.

Day care and schools are dominated by women. Not just the teachers, but also the administrators. Many of these women earn less money than STEM professionals in the competitive private sector. These women don’t typically blame their own choices in education and career for their underperformance. They blame men for “discriminating” against them. And this bias affects how they treat male students.

A good book on this phenomenon is “The War Against Boys” by Christina Hoff Sommers, a moderate feminist.

The Weakened Signal

Another factor causing men to underperform is the Sexual Revolution.

Here’s a post from Dalrock, a Christian men’s rights blogger, where he explains the choice facing young men:

[[…][W]omen’s past decisions to delay marriage also played a role in shrinking the pool of men who prepared to take on the role of provider.

[…]It isn’t just that young women are now astonishingly open about their intent to have sex with bad boys in their prime and settle for a beta provider at the last minute, although that has to have an impact.  It also isn’t just that as a society we see married fathers as beneath contempt, although surely that’s having an impact as well.

Today an 18 year old man doesn’t see the same incentive to knock himself out on education and career that men of previous generations saw.  Today an 18 year old man sees that for the next decade or so his most effective sexual strategy is to focus on being the sexy bad boy young women dedicate their sexual prime to, not patiently preparing to be the boring loyal dude who will pick up the tab*.

If you read studies about sexual behavior on college campuses, you’ll know that this is exactly what is going on there – parties and promiscuity. It’s promoted by the college administrators themselves. Unfortunately, the college campus hook-up culture doesn’t favor men who focus on education and career. It favors men who focus on appearance, athletic ability and sexual prowess.

It’s important for people to understand the factors that are causing men to disengage from the traditional male development process, such as education and career. Ignoring the actual incentives that men face won’t solve the problem.

Would you like your marriage to be long-lasting and fulfilling? Well, check out the questions below and see if you are ready for life-long wedded bliss.

1. Are you opposed to no-fault divorce laws?

No-fault divorce laws allow one spouse to leave the marriage at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. If you support no-fault divorce, then your view of marriage is that it’s something to be entered into lightly, because it can be exited easily. You’ll be walking down the aisle thinking “oh well, if it doesn’t work out, I can always get a divorce”. If you oppose no-fault divorce laws, then your view of marriage is that there is no escape hatch. You’ll probably be a lot more careful about getting married. Since you are convinced that marriage is built to last forever, you’ll have a courtship of at least 6 months, and involve both sets of parents in the process. If you put commitment above happiness, you’re ready for marriage.

2. Are you opposed to abortion laws?

Abortion laws basically make it easy for two people to have recreational sex, and then get rid of any complications that result quickly and easily. This way, both the people that created the effect can escape the responsibility for what they did, and keep right on pursuing their goals and dreams. If you support abortion laws, you’re really saying that you can engage in recreational sex with people who are unwilling to accept responsibility for any children that result. If you are pro-life, then you’re saying that people should be careful about having sex, and be ready to take responsibility for a child, should one appear. Being responsible is good preparation for marriage.

3. Are you supportive of daycare for young kids?

Daycare services are essential for couples who need both the father and the mother to be working. The advantage of both parents working is that you can afford lots of shiny new stuff – like vacations, boats, shoes and handbags. Studies show that children don’t die during daycare, although if you put a child in daycare, there will be effects on the child’s behavior, such as higher anxiety and aggression. If you oppose daycare, you’re putting the needs of your children above your need for shiny stuff. Putting the needs of children first is a sign that you are ready for the self-sacrifice that marriage requires.

4. Are you in favor of smaller government?

If you’re in favor of smaller government, then you would rather keep taxes low so that more money stays in the family. If you support bigger government, then you think that government knows how to spend your money better than you and your spouse do. Additionally, government usually likes to spend more money than they take in. For example, in  Obama’s 8 years, we added $10 trillion dollars to the debt, which doubled from 10 to 20 trillion under his watch. If you oppose higher taxes and bigger government, then you want government to pass on less debt to your children. Putting your kids’ financial well-being over your own is pro-marriage.

5. Are you in favor of school choice?

If you’re opposed to school choice, then you think that government should decide which schools your children will attend. School choice laws allow parents to give money to the schools they think are best for the children. If a school has excellent teachers and teaches students skills that they can use in their professional lives, then parents can choose that school. Schools have to compete to provide higher quality to parents, for lower cost. If you support giving parents more choice, then you put the needs of children – especially poor, minority children – above the needs of education administrators and teacher unions. Putting kids first is pro-marriage.

6. Are you in favor of premarital sex?

Premarital sex is really fun (so I’m told). You can have sex with people who are just really attractive, even if these people have lousy character. Your friends will be impressed, and you’ll feel more attractive – like you were climbing a ladder of attractiveness with each new partner. If you combine sex with being drunk, then you can’t remember anything after. And you can’t feel guilty if the booze made you do it, right? On the other hand, if you present yourself to your spouse as a virgin, you are telling them that you have self-control, that you take sex as communication rather than recreation, and that they can trust you to be faithful by keeping sex inside the marriage. Trust is important for a good marriage.

7. Are you in favor of welfare for single mothers?

Sometimes, women find themselves pregnant before they are married. If you think that giving taxpayer money to women who have babies before they have husbands is a good idea, then you are rewarding behavior that creates fatherless children. Raising a child without a father causes serious behavioral problems. Boys tend to become more violent, and are more likely to commit crimes. Girls tend to engage in sex at earlier ages. If you oppose encouraging fatherlessness with welfare, you want women to get married before they have kids. Taking the needs of children seriously is pro-marriage.

8. Are you in favor of same-sex marriage?

When a man and a man get married and acquire children, those children will not be raised with their birth mother. Similarly with lesbians, the children will not grow up with their birth father. Studies show that children suffer from not being raised by their biological parents. For example, children of same-sex parents have lower graduation rates than children raised by heterosexual couples. If you think that children have a right to a stable relationship with their biological mother and father, then you place a higher value on the needs of children as opposed to the needs of adults. That’s a good sign you’re ready for marriage.

9. Are you in favor of radical feminism?

Feminism shows that you think the purpose of marriage is to make women happy, and not to work as a team to serve God and raise good children. Indeed. Marriage doesn’t work if the woman approaches it as an accessory. Marriage is about a man and a woman sacrificing their own interests and compromising in order to work together as a team. Husbands and children have needs that women should care about. Feminism teaches women that husbands and children are less important than their careers, hobbies and interests. Feminism is anti-marriage.

10. Are you responsible with earning, budgeting and saving money?

This one comes to us from Bob P. He says that marriages work better when both spouses are “committed to financial planning, budgeting and a renunciation of debt to support a lifestyle. Disagreement about financial issues is one of the greatest causes of marital stress.” If you’re able to choose a college major or a trade that you don’t like, but that pays well, that’s a positive. If you’re able to string together jobs so that your resume is gap-less, that’s a positive. If you’re able to save money even though it means you’re having less fun, that’s a positive. If you’re able to give away money to others to support them, that means you’re able to sacrifice your interests for the benefit of others. That’s pro-marriage.

Well, how did you do? Leave your ideas for more policies and points of view that are marriage-friendly in the comments.

Do you remember a long time ago when Mozilla, makers of the Firefox browser, fired their CEO Brendan Eich because he made a donation to support natural marriage? That kind of thing happens often in the software development industry. Google fires people who aren’t progressive enough. Well, it’s happened again, this time with Tripwire Interactive.

Story from Daily Wire:

The CEO of a video game developer based in Georgia is now out of the company after he tweeted his support for Texas’s pro-life law, which bans abortions once cardiac activity is detected in the baby.

“Proud of #USSupremeCourt affirming the Texas law banning abortion for babies with a heartbeat,” John Gibson, CEO of Tripwire Interactive, tweeted on Saturday. “As an entertainer I don’t get political often. Yet with so many vocal peers on the other side of this issue, I felt it was important to go on the record as a pro-life game developer.”

Tripwire Interactive released a statement on Monday evening saying that Gibson was out, effective immediately, because of the comments that he made.

“The comments given by John Gibson are of his own opinion, and do not reflect those of Tripwire Interactive as a company,” the company said. “His comments disregarded the values of our whole team, our partners and much of our broader community. Our leadership team at Tripwire are deeply sorry and are unified in our commitment to take swift action and to foster a more positive environment.”

If you ask the Tripwire “whole team” whether they were tolerant and inclusive and diverse, they would say “of course we are”. So, just keep in mind when people say these words, they don’t really mean it. They mean “agree with me, or I’ll fire you so that you can’t earn a living, and you starve and your family starves” in a fashion reminiscent of Josef Stalin.

Now, if you look at polls about abortion, you’ll see that about half the country thinks that abortion is morally wrong:

On Wednesday, Gallup released its annual poll on abortion trends. Megan Brenan’s write-up for Gallup highlights that a “Record-High 47% in U.S. Think Abortion Is Morally Acceptable.” However, there is much more to the poll, including results that are more favorable to the pro-life position that the media may not be willing to cover.

That headline is technically true. The plurality, 47 percent of respondents, who find abortion to be “morally acceptable” is indeed a record high. But it’s crucial to look to the results of those who find abortion to be “morally wrong.” That number is at 46 percent, which is nearly identical.

Last year’s results found that 44 percent said abortion was “morally acceptable,” while 47 percent said it was “morally wrong.”

So, this is a very mainstream point of view. And frankly science is on the side of people who think that unborn children are alive and fully human. What’s happened is that people who are rich and powerful have decided that it’s more important for selfish adults to be able to engage in reckless, irresponsible sex and then kill their children to keep the good times rolling. Being pro-abortion is nothing more than saying that you should be able to kill innocent people when you’re driving drunk.

Anyway, my point about this story is this. If you want to work in IT and have an opinion about policy or morality that is counter to the secular left, then you need to have an alias. Period.

I’m someone who is made very uncomfortable by having to toe the party line of the secular left. So I have two choices. I can either keep silent or I can find a way to speak out. I have found that having an alias is the best way to have a voice, while still keeping my job. I can’t afford to lose my job, because for me there is no safety net of family or community. So, I try to make myself as defensible as possible. I am aware of what happens if you cross the wrong person at work, or the wrong person at church, etc. And since I have no backup, I have to be very careful about allowing unstable people access to the means by which I earn my living.

Do you know the difference between virtue and sin? When a man is chaste, he doesn’t mind being made fun of or disagreed with or shunned. Chastity testifies to him that he is a good person. But if a person is having reckless, irresponsible sex and killing his or her own children, any disagreement or disapproval is extremely upsetting. Chastity is self-evidently good, and murdering children is self-evidently evil. So, that’s why the selfish adults band together and attack anyone who doesn’t celebrate their selfishness. They know it’s wrong, but they think they can fix the guilt by silencing anyone who doesn’t celebrate them. This is where fascism comes from.

This case started with some video from the women who were affected complaining to the spa employees. They said that a biological male had shown his genitals to them and to their underage girls. The spa employees said this is allowed, because Democrat. What’s very interesting about this case is the the mainstream news media immediately declared the video a hoax. But was it?

Here’s what Slate, a far-left former news source, said:

In my opinion, when they say “may have been… but it still” as “it was only a hoax, but it still” they are calling it a hoax. Because how could far-left sexual deviants ever be bad people? Only good things come from rejecting God and embracing crazy selfishness, right?

Well, not so much. Here’s the latest from the New York Post:

In June, a group of women complained that a person who identified as female exposed [the person’s] penis at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles. The incident led to months of sometimes violent protests, with media outlets declaring it an example of bias against the transgendered, or even that it didn’t happen. Slate said it was a “transphobic hoax.”

But on Monday, charges of indecent exposure were discreetly filed against a serial sex offender for the Wi Spa incident, following an investigation by the Los Angeles Police Department.

Sources with knowledge of the case but not authorized to speak publicly say four women and a minor girl came forward to allege that Darren Agee Merager was partially erect in the women’s section of Wi Spa. Besides being a suspect in this case, Merager is facing multiple felony charges of indecent exposure over a separate incident in Los Angeles.

Merager, who spoke exclusively to The Post, denies the allegations and says that she is actually the victim of transphobic harassment.

This is the kind of thing that Bible-based Christians want to prevent, but that feelings-based “Christians” want to allow. On the one hand, you have Bible-based Christians who believe in objective moral rules, and maintaining boundaries, even if people who are reckless and irresponsible feel bad about being judged. On the other hand, you have people who have been reckless and irresponsible in their youth, like the abortion lady I blogged about before, who blame everyone else for their bad decisions, and just want to use Christianity as a club to prevent anyone judging them. The former group votes Republican, the latter group votes Democrat.

Lately, we’ve been seeing a lot of bad behavior from the secular left. A transgender woman demanding that Asian women wax the person’s genitals. Transgender women winning Olympic medals in biological women’s events. Transgender women sexually assaulting biological women in women’s shelters that prohibit men. Not to mention the Taliban raping, murdering and sex trafficking underage girls in Afghanistan. And so on.

All these bad behaviors were opposed by the mean traditional Christians, who voted Republican. But they are all supported by the feelings and experiences Christians who were reckless and irresponsible in their youth, and just think Christianity means “compassion, tolerance, diversity, pluralism”. They vote Democrat. Because they feel good about themselves when they side with the evil people against their victims.

We need to be a bit more careful when we are voting. And don’t be swayed by feelings and experiences “Christians” who vote for “compassion” and “tolerance”. Now we know what they were really voting for, and it’s not too pretty.