The Daily Detour

Turning up the heat on the global warming theory

The news is spreading about the hacking of the computers at University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom last week. This represents one of the leading "expert" sources on global warming. Why is this significant? Because the over 3,000 emails and documents that found their way to the web reveal the effort to hide the truth about climate change.

As you might imagine, the nature of the emails has generated considerable interest. And for the gurus of global warming, it has caused understandable concern. Interestingly, someone today pointed out that if the truth about the global warming is that the globe is not warming, those who have continued to sound the alarm should be ecstatic. And yet, they are anything but. Which only makes sense if it turns out that the Goracle & Co. are perpetuating a conspiracy--based on a theory in which they have invested considerable time, energy, and reputation. This latest development does not bode well for their cause, so we'll see...

Twitter and the loss of shame

(TDD Warning: Some of the content on the linked articles may not be suitable for some of our younger TDD readers. Please use appropriate discretion.)

A story about Twitter was burning up the internet this past week. It involved Penelope Trunk, who broadcasted to her Twitter audience that she was having a miscarriage during a recent board meeting. She went on to express her gratefulness for the miscarriage since there are legal hoops to jump in order to have an abortion in Wisconsin. As you might imagine, her controversial statements are being met with very mixed responses. Among other things, they undermine the pro-choice cause, seeming to reinforce the callous nature that many pro-lifers assume about those who support abortion. Ms. Trunk's responses remind me of a similar article in the New York Times magazine, "When One Is Enough" which also reinforces that mentality.

Beyond that, the book The Death of Outrage also springs to mind. When Bill Bennet first penned the book, its premise was directed at former President Clinton's indiscretions in the Oval Office. But the thesis still applies. We as a culture have gradually descended into a state of apathy concerning societal morality. Such is the nature of a culture that attempts to do away with moral absolutes in favor of tolerance-based moral relativity. We lose our basis for judging right and wrong, and thus, morality gets diluted.

As I have written in the past, we have a collective conscience that has begun to atrophy. And we are not better off for it. Will we ever learn? 

Who's in charge...man or God?

As part of the teaching series that I'm in the midst of right now, I sent out a London Times article from back in 2003. The occasion was celebrating the 25th anniversary of the first test-tube baby, Louise Joy Brown. Robert Edwards, one of the original two-man team that was responsible for the in-vitro fertilization technology, was being interviewed to commemorate that milestone.

What was especially revealing in the article was the point of discussion for our class on worldviews--namely, the clash between science and God. It was encapsulated in Edwards' revelation:

“It was a fantastic achievement but it was about more than infertility,” says Edwards, who rarely gives interviews but, when he does, delights in speaking his mind. “It was also about issues like stem cells and the ethics of human conception. I wanted to find out exactly who was in charge, whether it was God Himself or whether it was scientists in the laboratory.”

And what did he conclude? “It was us,” he smiles triumphantly.

Interestingly, the article also goes on to elaborate on this idea, even quoting him saying, "A child in your own image — just think of what it means to people. It’s fantastic."

No longer are we made in God's image. The "fantastic" reality is that we can create babies made in our own image. I'm reminded of Paul's comments in Romans 1 in which he wrote, "They...exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man...they worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator" (vv. 23, 25).

And so the clash between man and God lives on... It almost makes you wonder what God thinks of all of this. 

Speaking at Light and Life church

First of all, I hope you all had a good and restful weekend. The Crane clan took our annual overnight trip up to the Dunes here in Indiana, and had a great time. I had intended to do a better job of staying on top of the blog, but "the best laid plans of mice and men..." as they say.

Anyway, I mentioned last Friday that I'm starting into a busy season of speaking and teaching. Tomorrow evening (Wednesday, September 9 @ 6:30p.m.), I'm starting an 8-week teaching series entitled, "Back to the Basics" at the church were I was formerly on staff, Light and Life Free Methodist Church. The essence of the series (beyond sharing some of my experiences in Oxford last summer) is to explore what it means to live out a real, vibrant, and relevant Christian faith in today's world. This is not your typical "church class".

For those of you on the westside of Indianapolis, feel free to stop on by if you're in the neighborhood. I know it will be challenging, and I trust it will have you considering (or reconsidering) Christianity through a whole new lens. Hope to see you there.

"Lines That Divide" Stem Cell documentary

There is a new documentary that is being screened around the country entitled, "Lines That Divide". It focuses on the current stem cell debate and has been put together by a former classmate of mine at Trinity International University, Jennifer Lahl. She is the founder and national director of The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network.

In addition to Jennifer Lahl's work on the film, it was written and directed by Brian Godawa, whose best-known film To End All Wars (starring Kiefer Sutherland) is one of the best movies I've seen. A few years ago I had the opportunity chat briefly with Mr. Godawa while attending a worldview/apologetics conference down in Georgia. His pursuit is in putting together film projects that are inspirational, but also controversial. This documentary on stem cell research fits the bill.

I would encourage you to seek out this movie and watch it. Not only do we all need more education on this controversial issue, but it's also important to share this information with those in our circles of influence.

The latest slide on stem cell's slippery slope

I was just trolling around Facebook and came across fellow Centurion Stuart McKelvie's comment about a disturbing Breakpoint commentary. The subject of Chuck Colson's commentary concerns the latest developments in the stem cell research debate--this time arguing that we should consider harvesting organs from aborted fetuses in order to supply the needs of those waiting on the transplant list. All of this is with the "noble" intent of saving lives.

This entire idea is the essence of utilitarianism--the philosophy built on the idea of "doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people". In this case, taking one life (the fetus) in order to save other lives is justified. But where do we draw the line in such thinking?

Friends, this is not the speculations of futuristic science fiction. We are quickly moving down this gruesome path, and in some cases, we have already arrived.

In settling into my new job, I ran across a compelling quote shared with me some time ago by one of our TDD readers, which I have since posted in my office:

"Doing nothing is no longer an option!"

Especially for those of us who are Christians, the Bible compells us to "Speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves" (Proverbs 31:8). And furthermore, it says in Proverbs 24:11-12,

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?

Beyond merely a spiritual perspective, there is a pragmatic consideration that should grab all of our attention whether we're religious or not. The fact is, utilitarianism left unchecked means that ultimately nobody is immune from its grasp. Either we or our families will eventually succumb to the whims and "wisdom" of the most powerful among us. And that is a reality that can become extremely dangerous indeed.

More and more lately I have found myself being confronted with this nagging question, "John, what will it take for you act? How bad do things have to get before you finally say, 'Enough his enough!', and do something to combat the problems?" That is something for all of us to think about. So, be disturbed by this latest commentary on the stem cell debate, and do something about it (or any of the other issues confronting us today). If we don't, who will? 

The wait is finally over! :)

It's official! I...FINALLY...HAVE...A...REAL...JOB!!! (You can only imagine how happy my wife, Jean, is. And how happy I am because of that! :)

Even I can't believe it, but it's true. As of last week, I have secured full-time employment for the foreseeable future. It only took 13 months, much, much longer than I ever anticipated. :)

I was just hired as the Executive Director of the Sagamore Student Leadership Initiative. Some of you may already be aware of this student development start-up idea. I've been talking about my having been working for quite a while with a committed group of leaders here in Indianapolis to see about getting it off the ground. (In looking back at my notes, I was surprised to discover that we have been slowly-but-surely moving this idea forward since September of 2005).

Briefly, the SSLI is an organization that is dedicated to equipping next-generation leaders to exercise strategic leadership in the culture. It centers around educating them on who we are as a country and culture--teaching them to understand and respect our past in order to impact our future. Incorporated in this effort is also the opportunity to help young people begin to recognize their passions and calling in life, develop certain fundamental leadership skills, and pursue those passions in whatever endeavor they pursue in the culture (e.g. media, journalism, law, business, education, politics, science, sports, etc.).

I must say, I'm very excited about this opportunity to be able to impact the next generation of leaders to go out and make a lasting difference in the world. (We certainly need that kind of positive influence.) But this endeavor is not without it's significant challenges. (So don't be surprised if many of you begin to hear from me, since I'll be reaching out to anyone and everyone who I think may be able to help us out with this effort. :) Right now, we have no website yet, no real office yet, no letterhead, no staff...not even a stapler. But at least we have the first and only employee, ME! :) The rest are minor details by comparison and will be taken care of in due time.

I will be posting a more personal follow-up this week on all of this, but for now, I wanted you all to at least be aware that Yours Truly (and the rest of the family) are finally off the bread line. :)

The tragic consequences of fertility world records

You may have heard of Maria del Carmen Bousada, the woman who holds the world record for being oldest woman to be pregnant and give birth. She was 66 years old when she underwent in vitro fertilization. The subsequent birth of her two twins created news worldwide, and stirred afresh the ongoing debate as to the implications and responsibilities related to fertility efforts (particularly given the fact that she lied to the fertility clinic and said she was 55-years old, the maximum threshold for females who want to undergo artificial insemination).

That debate has taken on a new twist with the announcement last week that Ms. Bousada has died at age 69, leaving behind her now-two-year old twins babies. (So much for her assurances to the fertility doctors that because her own mother lived to be 101 years old, she too would be old enough to properly care for the children.)

As with any of the bioethical issues that are addressed on this blog, the proverbial "slippery slope" is a constant theme. And rightly so, as this particular incident demonstrates. Whether we are considering the implications of such complex issues like embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, or cloning, the results of such decisions are typically so far in the future as to render the present discussions virtually theoretical. But then the reality of those irrevocable decisions comes crashing to the fore, as this tragedy confirms. Whatever the motivations behind this increasing trend among older women to try to have children, it doesn't seem as though the long-term ramifications of those decisions are thoroughly considered. And the result is typically a short-term "solution" with long-term consequences.

What is to become of these two little babies? The reality that they now face was something that Ms. Bousada did not presumably anticipate when she went through the fertility process. But it is a reality nonetheless, and this tragedy has the potential to be only the beginning of similar life-altering tragedies along this bioethical trajectory upon which our culture finds itself.

This is all the more reason why Christians and other ethically-minded individuals need to not only strategically think through these pressing issues with a thorough seriousness, but they also must be much more intentional about advocating for better alternatives. If not, we can only expect similar outcomes to become more common in the future. And whether we anticipate it or not, real people are affected by such decisions.

Home gender test opens up ethical issues

A company out in California has now made it possible for pregnant women to find out as early as 10 weeks into the pregnancy what the sex of their unborn child is. The company, Intelligender, boasts a 78-80% accuracy rate.

The prospect of being able to determine the gender of one's child raises pros and cons on both sides. On the plus side, being able to know the sex of your child as early as 10 weeks into the pregnancy begins to personalize the little being inside the mother. No longer is it just a mass of human tissue, but rather a human being, and this understanding strengthens the bond between parents and child.

The potential downside concerns the ethical issues that are currently swirling around gender-selection debate. There is the possibility that a pregnant mother might be more inclined to abort the unborn child if she determines that the sex of that child is not to her liking. Because gender could be determined at an earlier stage in gestation it is psychologically easier to rationalize the termination of a baby when their development is not as advanced. (Of course, the knowledge that your child is either a boy or a girl personalizes the child even more, and thus, may make it that much more difficult to terminate the pregnancy.)

Often, many people (and many Christians) attempt to distance themselves from various bioethical issues (stem cell research, euthanasia, cloning, even abortion), assuming that those issues don't apply to their daily lives. Nothing is further from the truth. And especially with the continuing advancements in biomedical technology, bioethical issues will continue to pervade our daily experience. So it is imperative that we begin to think seriously and strategically about these various issues in order to know how we will respond when confronted with them.

For example, in this case, there are two issues to consider: 1.) If you could know the gender of your child even 10 weeks earlier in the pregnancy, would you want to? For those of us parents who didn't want to wait until delivery day for the surprise, the answer is presumably, "Yes!", 2.) But the more significant question to thoughtfully consider is, "If you could determine the gender of your child, would you?" The answer lies in that Pandora's box of issues which pursue the balance between "the things of God" and the things of man. And we cross that line at our peril. 

Huckabee: Is it ever right for one person to own another?

Flurried activity seems to be the order of the day of late. And as I've said previously, I can't seem catch myself coming or going. This past weekend was no exception. But we're back for another week of commentary, and the topics begging to be blogged are increasing to the point of inundation. Many of you have offered suggestions, and/or made inquiries, about different topics you would like me to touch on, and I appreciate the input very much. I promise I'm working to accommodate those suggestions and requests as quickly and responsibly as possible. And in the meantime, keep 'em coming.

As I mentioned last week, we were able to go to the Life Centers (formerly CPC) annual "Celebration of Life" banquet here in Indianapolis last Thursday. Governor Mike Huckabee brought the keynote address, which proved compelling. It was a great evening all the way around, and the work that the Life Centers are doing is significant (with literally hundreds of babies saved from abortion this past year alone).

I want to pass along a couple of highlights from Gov. Huckabee's speech that were thought-provoking. One of the first points in his talk which caught my attention was his equating abortion with slavery. I certainly don't want to misrepresent his argument, so I'll do my best to articulate it as accurately as I can. (Next time I need to take better notes, because the fatigue factor with this newspaper route is currently wreaking havoc with my brain. :) He pointed out that the overriding rationale from the pro-choice crowd regarding abortion is centered on a woman's right to choose. That is to say, it is believed that a woman has a right to choose whatever course of action best serves her own interests. In that sense, she essentially owns the child in her womb, because as the abortion lobbies suggests, she has the right do what she wants with her body. I've postulated before that there is a fundamental assumption being made with this rationale that always seems to go unquestioned and unchallenged--namely, that the fetus is indeed a part of the woman's body. And that same question raises itself again here.

From a Christian point of view, there is a clear distinction between the woman's body and the unborn child within her body. To Huckabee's point, the decisions she makes with that child are analogous to assuming ownership over that child--much like one person may own another as they did during the days of slavery. But can we make a case that it is ever morally permissible for one person to own another? We cannot. And as Huckabee pointed out, even the most radically liberal pro-choice advocate would never suggest such a thing.

The other main portion of Huckabee's speech which caught my attention had to do with another point that I've raised here from time to time. He shared a number of anecdotes from the presidential campaign, including the time he was asked by a member of the media, "What is the most pressing issue facing America today?" He unequivocally answered that he believed the greatest issue facing this country was abortion. His rationale for such a position focused on the contention that unless we maintain a belief in the inherent dignity of all people, regardless of physique, race, religion, mental capacity, age, etc., we will begin to sow the seeds of our own eventual demise as a society. I couldn't agree more, and I was reminded of a quote from Drs. Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop which I have referenced here before. It is the opening lines from their seminal book, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, which while written over 30 years ago, is proving as applicable today as it was prophetic then:

Cultures can be judged in many ways, but eventually every nation in every age must be judged by this test: How did it treat people? Each generation, each wave of humanity, evaluates its predecessors on this basis. The final measure of mankind's humanity is how humanely people treat one another.

And indeed, this is the case. How do we treat humanity--and not just the more mature members of our human race, but especially the most vulnerable among us? If some of us have less rights than others, what does that say about us as a people? Taken to its logical conclusion, we have no moral or philosophical means to prevent the next genocide (e.g. Nazi Germany, Rwanda, Darfur, etc.).

As someone once asked regarding this pivotal issue of abortion, "Who determined that the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the child?" Our ability to recognize, and reconcile, this glaring inconsistency is one more critical step toward reclaiming the true worth of all human beings. This recognition is something that Governor Huckabee is championing across the country. It was good to hear him do so last Thursday night.