Readers may recall the Illustra Media production Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record. The documentary opens with an animation of the hideous Anomalocaris, undisputed terror of the Cambrian seas. The creature is in the news today thanks to new revelations about its fantastic vision. Sadly, it’s proven to be another tough day to be a Darwinian.
We recently celebrated the 20th anniversary of the publication of Phillip Johnson’s groundbreaking book, Darwin on Trial. Phillip Johnson’s meticulous skill in scrutinizing the metaphysical assumptions undergirding much of evolutionary naturalism launched the modern intelligent design movement and set in motion a chain of events that must inevitably lead to the toppling of Darwinism in scientific academia.
Same sex marriage has been a very topical subject in Scotland over recent weeks, with the launch of a consultation by the Scottish National Party (SNP) — which closes this Friday — on whether marriage in Scotland should be redefined to effectively legalise gay marriage and religious ceremonies for civil partnerships.
The Scottish government has stated that it was its original position that marriage should be redefined, though Nicola Sturgeon — the Health Secretary — has said that religious organisations should not be forced to perform same-sex weddings should they not want to. We’ll see how long that lasts. After all, SNP MSP John Mason — a Christian — sparked a row earlier this year following his support for a parliamentary motion that no religious group should be compelled to approve of or facilitate same-sex unions. According to Nicola Sturgeon, a survey of Scottish Social Attitudes has revealed that over 60% of Scots endorse the proposed change, with 19% dissenting.
The curious thing about this whole controversy is that same sex couples can already enter into a ‘civil partnership’ which effectively offers them all the same legal recognition and rights that marriage does. The only real difference is that the ceremonies are not able to be performed in religious premises. It is also curious that most homosexuals with whom I have spoken concerning this issue have no desire for a religious marriage ceremony. For those reasons, I am inclined to be skeptical that this controversy was ever really about marriage — it’s about legitimisation. It’s about making a declaration — a statement — that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are equally valid.
For the record, it is my position that there is no Biblical warrant or support for homosexual relationships. And while I think that generally Scripture ought not be the dictator of public policy, this case strikes me as different because they are seeking to involve Christian — or otherwise religious — institutions. Christian organisations ought to base their activity on Christian principles. It is thus very relevant what the Christian worldview entails on the matter.
Now, there are various reasons why a revision of the current (traditional) view of marriage, in my opinion, would be overall non-conducive to society’s best interests. For one thing, if the definition of marriage is fundamentally malleable, then are we to expect to hear next from those seeking “equal rights” for polygamous marriage (as is already seen in Canada)? How can you grant legitimacy to one and not the other? After all, they use essentially the same arguments. Indeed, The Guardian recently published an interesting article entitled “Polygamy in Canada: A Case of Double Standards”, observing,
“What the polygamists argued is that this new definition discriminates against them because it continues to insist on monogamy in the same way that the previous definition insisted on both monogamy and heterosexuality. It was a logical argument that was rejected by Bauman who in his judgment gave a spirited defence of the virtues of monogamy as being a fundamental principle of western civilisation.
Bauman said that the preservation of monogamous marriage “represents a pressing and substantial objective for all of the reasons that have seen the ascendance of monogamous marriage as a norm in the west,” and that “the law seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in western society from the earliest of times.” He also launched an all-out attack on the concept of polygamy, which he said “has been condemned throughout history because of the harms consistently associated with its practice”. “There is no such thing as so-called ‘good polygamy’,” he added.
Now, I agree with Bauman in his defence of the importance of monogamous marriage to society. But I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm in the west when the laws of Canada have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability. Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?” [emphasis mine]
Furthermore, schools will be expected to promote and endorse same sex marriage as just as legitimate as heterosexual marriage. As Frank Turek has pointed out, in his book Correct, not Politically Correct: How Same Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone, “The law is a great teacher — many people think that whatever is legal is moral and, therefore, should be accepted. We only need to look at two of the most divisive issues in the history of our country — slavery and abortion — to see the power of the law to influence attitudes and behavior.” As Frank Turek discusses here, there is a correlation between legalisation of same-sex-marriage and the number of children born outside of wedlock. He writes,
“We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.
Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.””
Already, Stonewall’s “Education for All” education pack for teachers promotes the reading of pro-homosexual story books in class and acting out as plays, and even contains explicit recommendations that students should be taught to be resilient to the views and values of their parents.
Men and women are not interchangeable. I believe that each plays an important role in the upbringing and raising of a child. In his book, Frank Turek quotes David Blankenhorn’s The Future of Marriage, in which he writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.” Another important point is that same-sex parents are liable to confuse their child’s sexual/gender identity. As Dr. Michael Brown notes here, it is already official school policy in San Francisco that a boy who identifies as transgender can turn up to school wearing a girl’s dress and utilise the girls’ bathroom and locker room.
Religious liberty is also, it would seem, a target. Take, for example, the relatively recent case of Mr & Mrs Bull. They were fined £3,600 for declining to rent a double room to a gay couple, despite the fact that it had been against their long-term policy statement to allow unmarried couples to share a room.
An organisation called “Scotland for Marriage” recently emerged in an effort to combat the proposed redefinition of marriage in Scotland. You can visit their website to sign the petition or participate in the Scottish consultation (Scots only in both cases). There is also a petition that has been set up on ipetitions, which you can access here (again, Scots only).
Recommended further reading
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples (Dr. Timothy J. Dailey) – Looks at various relevant studies and concludes that (a) heterosexual marriages last longer as compared to homosexual ones; (b) partners involved in heterosexual relationships are more likely to remain faithful than partners involved in homosexual ones; (c) where gay marriage or civil partnership is legal, the overwhelming majority of homosexuals do not register their union; (d) individuals involved homosexual relationships are at a much higher risk of contracting disease or other health problems than are heterosexual relationships; (e) Intimate partner violence is more frequent in homosexual relationships than in heterosexual ones.
Correct Not Politically Correct: How Same Sex Hurts Everyone (Dr. Frank Turek) — Persuasively argues that same-sex-marriage is not conducive to the best interests of society. This is also the book which recently cost Dr. Frank Turek his employment with Cisco and Bank of America!
Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting (Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier) — Convincingly defends the traditional view of marriage and parenting.
What is Marriage? (Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George & Ryan T. Anderson) — A paper in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (43 pages in length) which builds a powerful secular case against same-sex-marriage based not on religious tradition or ‘holy writ’, but on publically accessible argumentation.
Christianity Today: Same Sex Marriage: A compilation of lots of interesting articles on this subject.
At his Wonderful Life blog, geneticist Robert Saunders has responded to my recent take down of his “critique” of Stephen Meyer’s arguments for intelligent design, offered and defended in Signature in the Cell. Of course, it wouldn’t be an anti-ID article without its share of condescending rhetoric. Saunders claims that I “have absorbed a typical strategy beloved of Intelligent Design creationists: of devising neologisms that don’t correspond to normally used science terminology, and combined this with ignorance of biology.” I have no doubt that Dr. Saunders is informed about his discipline but the arguments he presents here are weak.
A few weeks ago, I published the fourth part of my series on Wikipedia and common descent, in which I discussed the purported evidence for common ancestry based on biogeographical distribution. Previously, I had cross-examined the evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry, comparative anatomy, and paleontology. In this second-to-last installment, I will address Wikipedia’s evidence from observed natural selection and speciation.
As we have already reported, Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer recently paid a visit to London to present and defend the thesis of Signature in the Cell at a dinner party attended by scientists, philosophers, politicians and other men and women of influence. His visit included a radio debate against theistic evolutionist Keith Fox, which you can download and listen to here. Fox presented nothing fundamentally novel, and more or less all of the objections raised by him had already been thoroughly addressed in Meyer’s book. Keith Fox is a professor of biochemistry at the University of Southampton, and is also the chairman of Christians in Science — in essence, the UK equivalent of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA).
Francis Crick regarded the genetic code found in nature as a “frozen accident.” Yet more and more it is looking to be the case that this code is exquisitely finely tuned — with features suggesting it is indeed one in a million. Therefore ought not purposive or intelligent design be regarded as a legitimate inference, as the best explanation for how the code came into existence?
In reading — as one does — the popular atheist material on the Internet with regards New Testament scholarship, I recently came across a very old argument which is often trotted out by people who don’t know any better with regards the dating which the gospels assign to the the nativity and Roman census. Matthew’s gospel tells us that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod. Luke recounts the story, with which we are all familiar, of Mary and Joseph travelling to Bethlehem to register as part of the census which was taken. The skeptic typically objects upon reading those accounts and complains that these two things are actually a decade removed from each other. According to Luke, Jesus was born at the time of the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria — a census which was recorded by the Romans as occurring in 6 A.D. But Herod’s death — whom Matthew asserts was alive at the time of Jesus’ birth — occurred in 4 B.C.
According to Luke 2:1-3,
1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
But just how sound is this objection?
The first thing to take notice of is Luke’s remarkable accuracy as an historian in other areas. He gets many titles of rulers correct (in one case he got the title of an Asian leader right which Cicero gets wrong), has cities in the right place, in addition to various other incidental historical details. In light of this, it would be unwise to immediately jump to the conclusion that Luke is historically in error at this point. Before we reach that conclusion, we should first look to see whether there are any plausible alternatives which are not strained or ad hoc.
Second, we know from historical sources that Augustus ordered the census to be taken every twelve years, and we have records of those taking place in 8 B.C. and 6 A.D. If we assume that it probably took two or three years for a census to be completed, then it is not inconceivable that the census Luke has in mind was the one ordered in 8 B.C.. Herod died in 4 B.C., and so Jesus’ birth probably took place in 6 or 5 B.C. or thereabouts.
Third, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicate that Luke 2:2 can be translated, “This census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” In fact, if you turn to this verse in your Bible you will likely see a footnote indicating that this is so.
Fourth, as has been suggested by some, it is possible that Quirinius reigned twice. In 1764, a Latin inscription (the Lapis Tiburtinus) was discovered which recorded the career of a distinguished Roman officer. Unfortunately, the inscription is mutiliated such that the name of the individual concerned is missing. But some have interpreted the surviving details as descriptive of Quirinius. It states that when he became imperial legate of Syria, he entered upon that office “for the second time”. Another view is that this Latin inscription actually refers to Quintillius Varus, who was the governor of Syria at two separate times., reigning from 6 to 4 B.C. and again from 2 B.C. to 1 A.D. Between 4 and 2 B.C. reigned Sentius Saturninus. It is interesting that Tertullian (Against Marcion 4:7), in the third century A.D., notes that the imperial records show the occurrence of censuses in Judea during the reign of Sentius Saturninus. It is also noteworthy that, in the second century A.D., Justin Martyr (Apology 1:34) states that Quirinius was only a procurator of the province. Thus, some have argued, Quirinius was only an assistant to the governor Saturninus
In light of these plausible resolutions to Luke’s account of the census which, on first brush, appears paradoxical, it seems that the evidence would compel us to give Luke the benefit of the doubt on this issue, particularly when considered in the context of his exceptional historical accuracy on other matters.
Briefly stated, the often cited “onion test” observes that onion cells have many times more DNA than human cells do. And since the onion is considered to be relatively simple as compared to us, this discrepancy — it is argued — can only be accounted for if the preponderance of its DNA is, in fact, junk or non-functional. Let’s see whether the concept really holds any water.
We have now reached the fourth part of my series on Wikipedia and the evidence for common descent. In previous entries, I discussed Wikipedia’s arguments for common descent based on comparative physiology / biochemistry, comparative anatomy, and paleontology. Now I am going to address the arguments from biogeographical distribution. Biogeography is essentially the study of the geographical and historical distribution of species in relation to one another. The argument holds that species are related in accordance with their geographical proximity to one another.