Tag Archives: science
About a year ago former president Obama announced that transgender people could serve openly in the military. The decision was criticized by many saying it would affect unit cohesion and military readiness. Others panned the decision as a drain on tax dollars that would be needed to fund hormone treatments and sex-reassignment surgeries. And of course there were plenty of privacy discussions.
One thing to be clear about in our “everything is a right” culture is that serving in the military is not a right. There’s nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that says a person has the right to serve in the military. It is a privilege. If serving in the military were a right there would be no entrance requirements and people could not be disqualified based on bad eyesight, diabetes, or any other physical limitation. But, people are disqualified for any number of reasons, which is further evidence that military service is a privilege and not a right.
Let me start by saying I love the differences between men and women. I know that’s probably not a popular thing to say in our culture as we are supposed to downplay the differences between the sexes. Not me, I like the differences and I like celebrating our differences.
Up until about 10 years ago it was normal, popular even, to celebrate the differences between the sexes. Routinely within our culture we praised men for certain things and women for other things. This, despite the growing assault of the feminist movement, was nothing that would capture headlines.
Then things changed.
But Nye, for all his criticism of people refusing to accept “proven” science on climate change (and apparently transgenderism is now on the list), is the one pushing a dangerous political agenda over any sound science. This is why it’s not a good idea to get your scientific information from a pseudo-scientist. Just because he’s a cable celebrity with a Netflix series doesn’t mean he has any clue what he’s talking about. (Here’s a fun clip of Nye getting schooled by a real scientist concerning climate change.)
Yes, that’s an actual dialogue I had with my 4 year-old son recently. He says some of the most off the wall things. The kinds of things that stick with you and make you laugh at 11 o’clock at night when you’re brushing your teeth. But this time I was more curious about what he had to say.
I think it’s because I’ve read too many accounts of parents having similar conversations and determining that their child must be a “girl trapped in a boy’s body” and they begin buying him skirts and high-heels. Some of the stories I read are about 4 and 5 year old kids whose parents accommodate them when they declare they are the opposite gender.
The “science guy” Bill Nye has become a sort of poster-boy for the abortion movement. With one breath they tell men to keep out of it with respect to opposing abortion or making laws against abortion. But in the very next breath they fawn all over Nye as he trumps their bloody movement. Talk about hypocrisy. Nye recently posted a video that is causing waves. For abortion supporters the waves are cheerful and supportive. For pro-life advocates the waves are groans and sighs as Nye – who is supposed to be a “science guy” – completely botches the science of human reproduction. In fact, Nye sounds so un-scientific that it’s hard to listen to his ramblings or give him credit. Here’s some of the highlights from this amazingly terrible video:
“Many, many, many, many more hundreds of eggs are fertilized than become humans.”
“And so when it comes to women’s rights with respect to their reproduction, I think you should leave it to women.”
“I’m not the first guy to observe this: You have a lot of men of European descent passing this extraordinary laws based on ignorance. Sorry you guys.”
If you think that’s bad, try watching the rest. And just to make that easier, I’ve posted the video below for you. If the video doesn’t appear automatically, please refresh your browser.
There’s an argument in favor of legalizing same-sex “marriage” that says if legalized it will unite the country and remove a cultural wedge issue. One need only to look to the issue of abortion to know how absurdly false that claim is. The fact is, legalizing same-sex “marriage” will no more unite the country than the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court did.
Speaking of Roe and abortion, the Supreme Court has, in recent years, been a far more pro-life court than many have expected. Maybe it’s due to the advancement of science that was previously unavailable to the court. Maybe the court would have ruled differently had this science been available in 1973?
Or maybe it is the growing public sentiment supporting life that is having an impact on the court. As science increasingly reveals the humanity of the unborn the American public increasingly supports defending life at its earliest stages. As the American public makes their convictions known through elections, boycotts, and support for state level legislation, there is no doubt the Supreme Court is watching.
If you weren’t sure if the movement to defend life from conception to natural death was winning or not, the following list should help. Of course the media is in bed with big abortion business so their coverage is skewed to make people think the pro-abortion view is most popular. Wrong.
As Stanek shares, from a number of articles which can be seen here, there is overwhelming evidence to support the fact that the pro-life view is not just winning in courts, but winning in the court of public opinion. More people in America now identify as pro-life and believe abortion should be restricted to extreme cases. The push to protect children with disabilities, children of rape and incest, and even to protect children based on their gender is growing, quickly.
Despite the fact that we have the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history in the White House, more pro-life laws have been passed in the past several years than in the past three decades combined. Despite the media partnership with big abortion business people remain unconvinced that abortion is not murder. As many pro-abortion advocates rightly feared, science is proving the humanity of the unborn in undeniable ways; convincing people more than ever that human life does indeed begin at conception.
Based on the articles Jill Stanek lists in her post at LifeNews.com, here are the 15 reasons abortion advocates say they are losing to the pro-life movement:
The issue of how the world began is one of the most controversial discussions of our day. The debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye proved that people on both sides of the issue remain unconvinced by the arguments of the other side. For many adherents, whether they be to creation or evolution, the issue is a matter of faith.
If we are to be perfectly honest we must admit that whether one believes in evolution or creation there is a certain amount of faith that is involved. Line up the facts and the evidence for either argument and at the end of the day there will always be a small fragment of faith needed to resolutely proclaim belief in either side.
Why is that?
Simply put, we weren’t there.
If I visually witness a car accident I am able to give a very reliable testimony to police or even a jury if needed. My account of what took place would be considered far more reliable than that of someone that only heard the sound of the crash from inside their home.
If we translate this example to the issue of the origin of the iniverse we understand that since none of us were present when it happened, there will always be a measure of faith needed to believe in either evolution or Creation.
New research has concluded what most of us already knew: children need fathers.
There is a myriad of evidence that shows a father in the home reduces violent crime, produces a better social environment, and provides essential growth opportunities. However, researchers have questioned the need for fathers thinking they only provide more parenting, not distinct and unique parenting.
New research conducted by Professor David Eggebeen of Penn State University, uncovers the unique impact fathers have on their children that is pointing researchers to the conclusion that fathers do not merely give more parenting, but distinct and unique parenting needed by children of both sexes.
Fathers do not merely give more parenting, but distinct and unique parenting needed by children of both sexes.