The groom was attired in a black tuxedo, and the bride—decked in a white silk gown and pearls—carried a small bouquet. Max and Bella exchanged rings, and the reverend declared them wed. And then the bride and groom ran off, barking and wagging their tails.
Max and Bella, you see, were Chihuahuas—and their owners had just had them joined in “holy muttrimony.” The dogs’ owners say they did it just for fun—but I am not so sure. It appears to be just one more sign of the success of an aggressive animal-rights movement—one that seeks to blur the distinction between animals and humans. And even some Christians are being unwittingly pulled into their orbit.
For example, I know of a Bible-study group in Los Angeles that recently laid hands on a sick dog, praying God would heal her—and if not, receive her into heaven. Dozens of websites offer so-called biblical “proof” that animals are resurrected just like humans. Well-meaning evangelical authors write of their hopes that God will admit their beloved pets into heaven.
Of course Christians have a specific command to care for the creation. But that is not what we are witnessing here. These are signs of Christians weakening their own best defense on what constitutes the distinctiveness of humans. Christianity teaches that humans are the only part of creation that bears the image of God. We are, thus, unique in all creation, conscious of our existence, aware of death, and capable of works of great creativity. Humans alone have eternal souls, which confers upon us a unique moral status.
Many animal-rights activists dismiss any distinctions between humans and animals as “speciesism.” Princeton professor, Peter Singer, defines this as “a prejudice” that favors “the interests of the members of one’s own species . . . against those members of other species.” If the material world is all there is, if humans are nothing more than the product of evolutionary forces, then they are essentially no different from pigs, dogs, or rats. We are merely the latest stage in evolutionary development.
Singer and PETA are consistent at least. Their campaigns to grant constitutional rights for pigs or make it illegal to keep laying hens in cages are perfectly logical. It is Christians who behave irrationally when they fall into naturalist positions out of love for their pets.
I am not suggesting that people should not love their pets. There are few things more painful than the death of the family pet, long-time companion. But nowhere do the Scriptures teach that animals have souls. They will perish with the rest of creation. When Christ returns and our bodies are resurrected, we will live in the new heaven and the new earth—where there may be new (but not resurrected) animals.
If we fail to understand our own doctrines, more and more Christians will accept the idea that animals and humans are morally equivalent. Animal-rights activists will then press on: eliminating animal agriculture and banning life-saving research, and yes, Singer says, affording the same rights to animals that we give to humans.
Christians, arguing that humans alone are made in God’s image, can make the only logical defense of the uniqueness of human life. But if out of sentimentality we treat our pets as if they have souls, we give away the argument. What tragic irony if the Church finds it has been conquered through our beloved pets.
____________________________________
From BreakPoint®, March 11, 2008, Copyright 2008, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship
Comments
"and earth is only 4 billion, only 3 billion have had life (according to modern science). "
More like the Earths age is around 4.6 billion, while oldest signs of life being 3.85 billion.
"Dawkins was wrong, his math was wrong (in "The God Delusion" I believe). "
Sorry, Dawkins doesn't refer much to the Origins on life in TDG, he might mention it only by name, but doesn't go into any details at all. His book is not very detailed in biology at all, its mostly theological or philosphical rebutalls to the most common justifications for being a theist.
"Evolution will solve it, nothing else can, because evolution will!"
No Chris, I say lets stick with the NATURAL explanations, as to go outside the natural means you've gone off onto the supernatural which ceases to be actual science. ID as a hypthesis rests on some unknown, unseen, untestabled designer which can't be critiqued at all directly, a totally unscientific resolution to learning things.
Many of your predictions are not predictions but simple observations, others have been set up as unfalsifiable.
Prediction 1: Could mean a common designer.
Prediction 2: Non-falsifiable, even if you found such "contradictory" hiearchies, you would simply deem them "transitionals" or find another place for them.
Prediction 3: Forgive me, I have no idea what this is (haha)
Prediction 4: unfalsifiable, at least the way you have propositioned it. I think that if you found a mammal like bird, then you would simply find some way to explain it through evolution. I think large gaps and explosive varieties of species would be a better test. (Does it pass, oh no!)
Some are good, but they certainly do not prove that evolution must be true, and the vast majority are not mutually exclusive with ID.
Agentorange,
Sorry for the delay, I have been on vacation.
First, minorities do not have to vote to be slaves, majorities can vote for it, and then minorities can be forced into it. Rightness or wrongness is not based on democracy, you need to provide another source for moral truth, or else abandon moral truth for relativism.
"All possible scenarios when used in an infinite or substantial time allotment effectively become = 1."
We have not had infinite time, the universe is at most 15 Billion years old, and earth is only 4 billion, only 3 billion have had life (according to modern science). 3 Billion years is infinitely smaller than infinite time (or near infinite). Dawkins was wrong, his math was wrong (in "The God Delusion" I believe). The math just doesn't work like you want, unless you can come up with an infinite universe (please do, and then submit your ideas to the meta-physicis society so that you can recieve the nobel prize).
"Well, no not quite."
Point taken, "Everything in the realm of biology" my point still stands, that making a statement like this kill scientific enquiry. Any holes that are in evolution, you just say, "Evolution will solve it, nothing else can, because evolution will!"
Prediction 23: endogenous retroviruses. Since endogenous retroviruses are heritable, their presence should mirror common descent, nested hierarchies, and the phylogenentic tree.
Potential falsification: endogenous retroriviruses which do not fit into the same nested hierarchies and patterns of common descent as the phylogenetic tree.
Prediction 24: genetic change. There should be sufficient genetic change to support the existence of macroevolution. When we compare the genomes of various organisms, we should see that genetic change traced out in the same pattern as the phylogenetic tree. Genetic change should be heritable and largely irreversible.
Potential falsification: if genomes were highly resistant to change, or commonly and typically reverted to wild type, macroevolution would be difficult to explain.
Prediction 25: the fossil record. Macroevolution predicts that as one looks at older and older sediments, one should see organisms that have increasingly primitive (in the cladistics sense of the term) features.
Potential falsification: essentially modern organisms all the way back in the fossil record, or alternatively, no pattern of primitive and derived characteristics chronologically.
Prediction 26: speciation. If speciation is an ongoing process, we should see various degrees of speciation, from fully-interbreeding populations to partially interbreeding populations to populations with reduced fertility or complete infertility to completely genetically isolated populations.
Potential falsification: if all species were genetically reproductively isolated and there were no instances of hybrids, it would be difficult for macroevolution to be true.
Prediction 27: speciation rates. Current estimates, based on the fossil record and mutation rates, are ~3 million years for complete reproductive isolation, on average. Rates of speciation and of morphological change should be as high as or higher than that observed in the fossil record.
Potential falsification: rates of morphological change that are much slower than that observed in the fossil record.
27 Predictions that had the potential to falsify ToE and did not because the prediction was proved to be correct.
Prediction 18: molecular suboptimality. There should be evidence of suboptimal design at the molecular level, such as the large amount of the human genome that seems to serve no known function. E.g., the human GDPH gene. There is one functional GDPH gene, and at least 20 non-functional copies of the gene.
Potential falsification: if the genomes of all organisms were efficiently designed, with only the DNA required and no more (no pseudogenes, no nonfunctional tandem repeats, "junk DNA." - even if latest findings indicate that perhaps up to 20% of what we though was "junk" isn't that still leaves a lot of "junk")
Prediction 19: protein functional redundancy. There should be many genes that are common to all organisms regardless of whether they are needed. I.e., there should be genes in bacteria that also appear in humans even though they serve no function in human beings. Further, organisms which are related should have similar ubiquitous genes, and less closely-related organisms should have less closely-related ubiquitous genes.
Potential falsification: no pattern of relatedness to ubiquitous proteins. A chimp cytochrome c protein should be no more closely related to the human version than the rat protein, or the douglas fir protein, or the yeast protein, or the e. coli protein.
Prediction 20: DNA coding redundancy. The same pattern of relatedness should show up in the DNA coding for ubiquitous proteins. The more closely related two organisms are, the more similar their DNA sequences should be for ubiquitous genes.
Potential falsification: there should be no pattern of relatedness to DNA sequencing for ubiquitous genes, or a different pattern that is unrelated to the pattern for the amino acid sequence for the protein.
Prediction 21: transposons. Since transposons are random, but heritable, there should be a pattern in transposition that follows the phylogenetic tree.
Potential falsification: transposons that do not fit into nested hierarchies, or fit into different nested hierarchies from the phylogenetic tree.
Prediction 22: redundant pseudogenes. There should also be a pattern among pseudogenes that follows the phylogenetic tree.
Potential falsification: since pseudogenes are rare, it should be extraordinarily unlikely that the exact same pseudogene would appear in two distantly-related organisms. Therefore, pseudogenes should fit into the same nested hierarchies established by the phylogenetic tree. If there were no pattern, or a different pattern from that required by common descent, common descent would be falsified.
Prediction 11: Past biogeography. We should not find the same taxon on two landmasses that separated before the taxon evolved (excepting, of course, later imports)
Potential falsification: ape fossils in South America, elephant fossils in Australia.
Prediction 12: human and ape fossils should not be found in Australia, South America, or on remote islands which would have been inaccessible to ancestral apes at the time they evolved.
Potential falsification: human, H. erectus, Australopithicus, etc. fossils in Australia, the Americas, Antarctica, etc.
Prediction 13: Anatomical parahomology. There should be no anatomical features that are not derived from previously existing structures.
Potential falsification: an existing anatomical structure that cannot be derived from more primitive, ancestral features. A horse with wings would be a falsification, since there would be no anatomical features of any horse that could be modified into wings (no ancestors of horses have six limbs).
Prediction 14: molecular parahomology. All proteins currently in existence should show statistically significant similarities to proteins with more primitive, core functions.
Potential falsification: proteins that are not related to any previously existing proteins (i.e., "new" proteins which are not derived from any previously-existing proteins). Also, derived proteins that are more deeply rooted in the phylogeny, i.e., older, than the core proteins they derive from.
Prediction 15: anatomical analogy. If two unrelated organisms evolve an analogous structure, that analogous structure must be explicable in terms of modification of ancestral structures in both organisms.
Potential falsification: gills in aquatic mammals or birds. There are no structures available in immediate ancestors from which gills can evolve. Evolution can't "skip steps."
Prediction 16: molecular analogy. If two different organisms evolve analogous molecular structures, those structures must be modifications of previously-existing structures in both organisms.
Potential falsification: no cases of molecular analogy, where all organisms that perform a function with a particular structure all use exactly the same structure; i.e., no convergent evolution.
Prediction 17: anatomical suboptimality. Since evolution can only work by modifying pre-existing structures, there should be many examples of suboptimal evolution.
Potential falsification: a mammal or reptile with no optical blind spots. Evolution cannot got back and "fix" a suboptimal design after the fact, since the ultimate use for any structure cannot be "known" by evolution.
Prediction 1: a universal genetic code.
Potential falsification: a finding of multiple, unrelated genetic codes.
Prediction 2: a nested hierarchy of species.
Potential falsification: organisms that violate nested hierarchies, such as feathered platypuses, non-vascular plants with seeds, birds with mammary glands, insects with placentas.
Prediction 3: consilience of independent phylogenies.
Potential falsification: independently-derived phylogenies which do not converge, or which produce wildly divergent hierarchies.
Prediction 4: intermediate and transitional forms in the fossil record.
Potential falsification: fossils which do not fit into nested hierarchies, such as a mammal-like bird or an insect-like starfish.
Prediction 5: chronological order of intermediates.
Potential falsification: a negative correlation between the stratigraphy and the phylogenetic tree. E.g., mammal-reptile intermediates older than reptile-amphiban intermediates, or reptile-amphibian intermediates older than proterostome-deuterostome intermediates.
Prediction 6: anatomical vestiges.
Potential falsification: a vestigial feature that was not functional in an ancestor. Examples: snakes with vestigial wings, insects with vestigial backbones, primates with vestigial horns, mammals with vestigial gizzards.
Prediction 7: Atavisms (e.g., living whales with legs, living humans with tails)
Potential falsification: the same as the falsification for anatomical vestiges.
Prediction 8: Molecular vestiges (e.g., the broken human gene for ascorbic acid).
Potential falsification: essentially the same as for anatomical vestiges and atavisms. A finding of pseudogenes for chloroplasts in any metazoan.
Prediction 9: embryonic features of ancestors, such as traces of gill formations in amniotes.
Potential falsification: embryonic features that do not exist in ancestral lines, e.g. nipples in reptile embryos or bird-like beaks in eutherian mammal embryos, leg buds in teleost fish.
Prediction 10: Present biogeography should reflect common descent.
Potential falsification: elephants on remote Pacific islands, amphibians on remote islands, Antarctic or Australian indigenous cacti.
I understand, vacations and family time are important.
“democratically vote for slavery to be legal,”
We I suppose (technically speaking) yes, we could. But that in itself doesn’t make it any more ethical than being written in some sacred holy book paritally condoning it either. Society progresses and it’s truly hard to imagine in a democratic vote that people would willingly subject themselves to be slaves and stick around for it to unfold for it to happen. Regardless of legality on slavery or other laws, people at least to the smallest degree or as a minority will commit illegal acts.
“and possibly scientific truths”
In regards to epistimology, we only have ‘science knowledge’ and not science ‘truth’, but I get your point. In regards to the REPS, they are elected to make not just to decide on behald of the people, but to decide on what’s in the best interest for all parties involved. In that regard the laymans don’t know what’s good for them as generally most can’t distinguish pseudo science (ID) that argues from incredulity, isnt’ tested, isn’t a science theory at all and from actual science which is. The Dover trial was interesting Chris, as Behe had to admit in court that under his looser definition of what is deemed scientific, Astrology alongside ID would be deemed science. I don’t know about you, but that isn’t not progress.
“No you are confusing the point made. It is not about probability, it is about possibility.”
But Chris you’re ignoring that over a hypothetical infinite (or substantial amount of time) all outcomes become no just possible, or even plausible, but rather certain. All possible scenarios when used in an infinite or substantial time allotment effectively become = 1.
“you said that evolution can explain everything that it doesn't explain now.”
Well, no not quite. Evolution as a model can be used for predictable, falsifiable tests, but it won’t explain everything in every realm of science, it will mostly be relevant to biology. Just b/c we don’t have certainty in a detail of the theory (PE or Gradualism) doesn’t mean the model/theory can’t be used to produce results. A good science theory is strengthen by the number of correct predictions it makes, its essentially reaffirming the veracity of the model. I’ll list some predictions the theory has passed above.
Agentorange (Part 1)
Sorry this is late, I was on vacation.
"You see, in a democratic process where all parties are represented, a group of people would never have elected to have themselves as slaves in the first place, and that is how I was referring to the Democratic process being able to address laws and adjudication."
Well, we could democratically vote for slavery to be legal, and if we were truly democratic then it would be legal, even if the minority voted against it. You did not answer the assertion.
"You’re mixing up the system of laws and how our REPS decide what’s best and how our REPS in academia decide what’s best on our behalf. We don’t have a ‘true democracy’, but rather a representative one and as so our REPS are those that make such dire choices."
No, I know the difference, and I know what we have. But you mixed up what I was saying, I was challenging your assumption that Democracy gets to decide what is right. Whether it is representative or not, the REPS should not ever go against certain moral truths (such as they should never legalize rape) and possibly scientific truths. As you vociferously defended yours.
"Democracy is the best system yet offered, if you have a better idea go ahead speak up."
Again, you missed my point. I said, "Who decides that Democracy is right?" Because you seemed to think it was so good. From our perspective Democracy is great, but from Fidel Castros, or from Bin Laden, well not so great. Does you or my or 50 people's saying it make it right? No, there must be something else. It works (well sometimes, I'd say most democracies end up being miserable failures if you do not have resources and a stable economy) but that does not make it right.
Agentorange (Part 2)
"Well the odds of that happening are essentially zero and equal as a single group of people (blacks) voting to self elect themselves as slaves, agree?"
No you are confusing the point made. It is not about probability, it is about possibility. You avoided the direct answer. I said "IF we did elect to eat babies, would it be good?" If you say no, then democracy is not good for deciding truths, if you say yes, then you speak for yourself. If you say nothing (as you basically did) then you are just stalling.
"What crack are you smoking? We challenge every single science theory with every single test it undergoes!"
Again missed the point, you said that evolution can explain everything that it doesn't explain now. Well that is like saying, "The flat earth theory can explain everything it is having trouble with now" It kills scientific inquiry. I am not making this stuff up, it just so happens to be obvious, irrefutable, objective truth. (I don't smoke either)
"Desire? Does matter coalesce and 'desire' to produce energy via fusion? No, it doesn’t. It’s just matter working according to fundamental laws."
Am I seeing this? You have created a brand new theory (or one I have never heard of)! That there is a fundamental law that says that nonliving matter will become living and subsequently evolve into higher life forms. This is not even a theory, it is a humungous assumption. It is equivalent to saying, "Life came into being, because life comes into being." Well isn't that nice... I am going to need a full outworking of your theory (I am sure it will take many many books to write, so send me a link to buy them off of e-bay). It is one thing to say that certain elements under certain circumstances ungergo fusion, but it is incomprehensibly another thing to say that elements become alive and then naturally evolve.
”Well this seems to kill all scientific inquiry, "unless a theory can NEVER explain something, then we should not challenge it"
What crack are you smoking? We challenge every single science theory with every single test it undergoes!
With every piece of evidence is found, it has the potential to change or destroy any theory. When DNA was discovered in the 60’s it had the potential of destroying the evolutionary theory. Instead, it has filled in many of the gaps of knowledge and lead to more tests to validate evolution as a unifying theory.
In all realms of Science, we opt for a natural explanation as this is one least cluttered and most pure and useful as it produces falsifiable evidence, where as using ‘god done it’ isn’t falsifiable, doesn’t explain anything or answer anything. For this reason we use theories that unify and explain things best, and thus far as far as the diversity of life goes, evolution is the leading tested theory. If you have another that equally explains all evidence, is falsifiable then start forming hypothesizes, running tests, follow the scientific method, publish you results and have them torn to shreds under peer review. And then IF it makes it out, it can and should be taught in public schools. But you see, the ID folk don’t want to go that route, rather they’d rather have their totally untested and unsupported idea injected directly into the science classroom.
“I believe it is silly and down right crazy to believe that matter just turned into life which just so happened to desire to REPRODUCE and EVOLVE. (Talking about origins not Natural selection).”
Desire? Does matter coalesce and 'desire' to produce energy via fusion? No, it doesn’t. It’s just matter working according to fundamental laws. Wouldn’t such laws be governed by god and regardless would therefore he’d be the indirect cause of how and why matter does what it does in the end anyway? Of course, so what exactly are you crying over? if the god makes all the laws from the get go, then anything derived from it is therefore directly or indirectly credited to his working.
You’re right, ID isn’t limited to Behe, but his and its loose standards it uses to be considered within the science is used outside of Behe. FYI, Behe doesn’t doubt common ancestry (including humans) he only suggests that god/ID worked his magic somewhere in the process. As soon as a biological system is reproducing then Natural Selection can act on it and thus evolve.
Chris333,
“when slavery was acceptable by the majority that means it was morally good?”
Well no. From the slave owners point of view all was well, but from the other perspective from the slave this was an obvious injustice. You see, in a democratic process where all parties are represented, a group of people would never have elected to have themselves as slaves in the first place, and that is how I was referring to the Democratic process being able to address laws and adjudication.
“And if the majority thinks that ID should be taught instead of evolution then that means it should be so? “
You’re mixing up the system of laws and how our REPS decide what’s best and how our REPS in academia decide what’s best on our behalf. We don’t have a ‘true democracy’, but rather a representative one and as so our REPS are those that make such dire choices. If people hold elections and their REPS choose not to back ID, then the people have spoken via our democratic republic process. In Dover, ID was shown to not be Scientific and the only way to bring such an idea into Science would be to loosen the standards that Science works under, which as I mentioned earlier would result in other pseudo sciences like Astrology also being coined as scientific. Surely you can see the problem when the Science stands are being brought so low to incorporate ideas like Astrology as being Scientific.
“Well who said democracy was right?”
Democracy is the best system yet offered, if you have a better idea go ahead speak up. “Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” - Winston Churchill.
“And what if we democratically decide that eating babies is good?”
Well the odds of that happening are essentially zero and equal as a single group of people (blacks) voting to self elect themselves as slaves, agree?
Ive been gone for the weekend so this is gonna be along one, sit back and get some popcorn....
to Agentorange: too comment on this:
"No, we shouldn’t. We should strive to teach what is backed by facts and supported by evidence so we can be sure we are progressing our knowleedg for humanities sake. It’s not a matter of ‘forcing’ anything, it’s about teaching the otherwise ignorant kids who can’t tell the difference from science from psuedo science on what the facts and evidence supports. "
Thats what i have been saying all along, give them the facts and only the facts not hearsay and conjector, the problem comes when teachers, administrators, legislators, parents and politicions try to force incomplete and inadequate "facts" upon the the students. Another thing tho is that you expect me to believe that we shouldn't give the kids all the information on a subject just because they may make a judgement about history, i don't buy that... However, we make the same judgements about their ability to determine when is a right time to have sex in school, we give them birthcontrol and condoms in schools because we believe that "they are going to do it anyway" right, well the problem lies there, we know certain people are going to kill them selves should we provide the gun and bullets, yet we don't think that these children can make an honest interpretation of the data they are provided. pish posh....
To star2, no prob, i didn't read any of the back and forth after i posted because i got busy with the family and easter, but it was a great weekend...
To Howard, welcome back, i am not sure why responces got erased again, and i didn't get to read any of them to respond but i hope you read my post, God has laid you and your anger heavy on my heart, I hope you don't mind me praying for you.
Agentorange,
"Well, we live in a Democratic Republic, which is a form of representative consensus governance, so the majority certainly does make the decisions."
So, by your thinking, when slavery was acceptable by the majority that means it was morally good? And if the majority thinks that ID should be taught instead of evolution then that means it should be so? What if the majority would rather discriminate against a certain minority? I know you don't really believe what you have said. (I hope not).
"I would say both have areas of strong evidence..."
Certainly, however I can test gravity right now, just by dropping a penny. I cannot test evolution right now. That was my point.
"We democratically decide and adjudicate our laws and punishments..."
Well who said democracy was right? And what if we democratically decide that eating babies is good? Does that make it good? If not then your idea about democracy deciding right and wrong is virtually worthless.
"What ‘holes’ do ID folk speak of that are legit, tested, and show evolution can’t now or ever explain?"
Well this seems to kill all scientific inquiry, "unless a theory can NEVER explain something, then we should not challenge it" I always get people tell me that if you assert God you kill science, well I'll be... Besides that ID is not limited to Behe. I am an ID proponent, because I believe that God did create us, whether evolution was the 'vehicle' or not. That makes me 100% Intelligent Design. I believe it is silly and down right crazy to believe that matter just turned into life which just so happened to desire to reproduce and evolve. (Talking about origins not Natural selection).
Howard
God laid it on my heart that I needed to apologize to Slacker for deleting your comment to him. I tried to do what is right when God convicts me of the need to do it.