Amazing! Rosetta Stone is the fastest way to learn a language and has been the #1 foreign language curriculum among homeschoolers for a while — and you can WIN the *all new* version 3 Rosetta Stone Homeschool LATIN program… FOR FREE! This is the first year you can get Latin in the brand new Version III update. This is a $259 program (and believe me it’s worth every penny!) This is a computer based curriculum and Rosetta Stone will also include a headset with microphone, and a supplementary “Audio Companion” CD so you can practice lessons in the car, on the go, or where-ever! Students participate in life-like conversations and actually produce language to advance through the program. Rosetta Stone incorporates listening, reading, grammar, vocabulary and writing along with speaking and pronunciation lessons. For parents, the new Parent Administrative Tools are integrated into the program to allow parents to easily enroll up to ten students in any of 12 predetermined lesson plans, monitor student progress, grade completed work (the program grades the work automatically as the students progress- I love that!), and you can view and print reports for transcripts. Homeschooling a lot of kids at your house? This program is designed to enroll and track up to ten students (five users on two computers) and will work for nearly all ages — from beginning readers up to college students. To win this most excellent Latin program copy these paragraphs and post them in (or as) your next blog post, and/OR link to the contest from your facebook page and/OR email the information to your homeschool support group – Then go to the original page http://Jeneralities.com and leave a comment saying that you’ve posted about, or have linked to, the contest. Please make sure the link works to get back to the original contest page when you post. And good luck!
May 13, 2009
May 5, 2009
The Illusion of Age
A news post about a teacher “defaming” creationism has spured me to make this post. I think there is a lot of odd beliefs out there, potentially on both sides of the argument, but I also think that Creationism and Evolution don’t have to be at odds (though I’d favor the latter over the former if it came down to it). I’d like to posit at least one way they could be joined, mentioned below as “the illusion of age”. But first…
St. Augustine once wrote:
“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).
“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation” (ibid., 2:9).
“Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them” (ibid., 4:27).
“[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar” (ibid., 5:2).
The Church certainly is not anti-science. People often will raise the Galileo controversy, missing entierly the fact that it wasn’t heliocentric revolution that got Galileo in trouble, for Copernicus posited the same thing in his work a generation earlier, dedicated it to the pope, and had it very warmly received! In fact, it has been one of the largest supporters of science in the history of the world. The Church teaches “there can be never any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” (CCC 159)
Vatican I defined that everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5). All of creation is subject to the divine plan and will of God, and nothing acted apart from that will. This much is clear. What is not particularly clear is how we must understand certain passages.
Genesis 1 and 2 – certainly wellsprings of contentious interpretations – use metaphorical language to relay a real event in our primordial history (CCC 390). We can know that at least one of the two chapters is not literally true because they present different orders of creation. Indeed, laying down a literal, scientific ordering of creation does not seem to be what the author of Genesis has in mind. One supposes that what such descriptions are doing are primarily showing the importance and intentional creation of man, both confirming man is no accident and is made in the image and likeness of God himself.
God could have created the animals and even man through a guided natural process of evolution, or he could have created them on the spot as they were, and a Catholic is free to believe either in good conscience at this time. But this raises an interesting point of speculation: supposing God created Adam instantly, how old was he? 15? 30? “Middle-aged”? Nope. He’d have been one day old. And being one day old, he would have been created with the “illusion of age”. And if God can do that with the man, one sees no reason he couldn’t do it with the universe…
…But then if he can create it to make it look like it has history, there is no reason to suppose he couldn’t just create it with such an actual history either. [digg http://digg.com/general_sciences/The_Illusion_of_Age]
The short answer is thus: The Catholic Church permits one to hold a range of opinions regarding Evolution, so long as none of them contradict truths of the faith. The range of acceptable beliefs is wide.
March 25, 2009
The Dumbest Ex-President Since Before ‘W’…
EDIT: On second thought, I think I’d support legislation that permits scientific experimentation only on “unfertilized embryos”…
Not that anyone will notice, but Clinton has been spouting his mouth off about things he obviously has no clue about – and he’s not being caught in his ignorance (or worse). Had similar comments come from W., we’d already have dedicated web-pages…but because it’s Slick Willy, we are either turning a blind eye or – worse – stupid enough to believe him (or not know otherwise).
Bill Clinton doesn’t know basic biology. He doesn’t know what an embryo is. Bill Clinton thinks embryos can be fertilized (and more over that they are not fertilized). AND, Sanjay Gupta (Obama’s Pick for Surgeon General) never catches him in his glaring mistakes.
From CNN’s transcript, the following may be glimpsed:
CLINTON: If it’s obvious that we’re not taking embryos that can — that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies … then I think the American people will support this. …
GUPTA: Any reservations?
CLINTON: I don’t know that I have any reservations, but I was — he [Obama] has apparently decided to leave to the relevant professional committees the definition of which frozen embryos are basically going to be discarded, because they’re not going to be fertilized. I believe the American people believe it’s a pro-life decision to use an embryo that’s frozen and never going to be fertilized for embryonic stem cell research, especially since now, not withstanding some promising developments, most of the scientists in this field and the doctors will tell you they don’t know of any other source as good as embryonic stem cells for all the various things that need to be researched.
But those committees need to be really careful to make sure if they don’t want a big storm to be stirred up here, that any of the embryos that are used clearly have been placed beyond the pale of being fertilized before their use. There are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be fertilized, where the people who are in control of them have made that clear. The research ought to be confined to those. …
But there are values involved that we all ought to feel free to discuss in all scientific research. And that is the one thing that I think these committees need to make it clear that they’re not going to fool with any embryos where there’s any possibility, even if it’s somewhat remote, that they could be fertilized and become human beings.
What in the world?! How could you miss such blatant gaffes? There is a serious difference between thinking that the pro-life position is wrong on this issue for legitimate reasons, and thinking the pro-life position is wrong for illigitimate un-truths.
God help us!
March 24, 2009
The Pope, Condoms and the AIDS epidemic, II
From an article over at WorldNetDaily,
A senior Harvard research scientist confirmed that Pope Benedict XVI, who endured heavy criticism for declaring that condom distribution programs worsen the AIDS epidemic in Africa, was actually correct.
Dr. Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development
Studies, told National Review Online last week that despite AIDS activists and media outlets pounding the pope for downplaying the effectiveness of condoms, the science actually supports the Catholic leader’s claim.
“The pope is correct,” Green told NRO, “or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. “
“There is,” Green added, “a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”
…
According to Green, however, the pope’s critics have bought into a common myth about condoms and AIDS.
“We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates,” said Green, “which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”
Instead, Green noted, the pope’s encouragement of Africans toward monogamous sexual relationships has proven to be a much more effective strategy:
“The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates,” Green said.
In Uganda, according to a report in Science magazine, teaching about AIDS and promoting monogamy has led to a dramatic turnaround in the country’s AIDS epidemic.
“Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is preventable if populations are mobilized to avoid risk,” states the report’s summary. “Despite limited resources, Uganda has shown a 70 percent decline in HIV prevalence since the early 1990s, linked to a 60 percent reduction in casual sex. The response in Uganda appears to be distinctively associated with communication about [AIDS] through social networks. Despite substantial condom use and promotion of biomedical approaches, other African countries have shown neither similar behavioral responses nor HIV prevalence declines of the same scale. The Ugandan success is equivalent to a vaccine of 80 percent effectiveness.”
When will we learn. When will we stop putting our own adgendas before the health and well being of others. When the fall has been undone, one supposes…
March 17, 2009
The Pope, Condoms, and the AIDS epidemic…
Stop the presses, Fox new’s has an exclusive story:
Pope: Condoms ‘Increase’ AIDS Epidemic in Africa
Why on earth would anyone, especially such an otherwise learned man, say this other than blind adherence to dogma?!
Bear with me, because what I’m about to say will probably seem to clash with everything you’ve ever been taught about sex: CONDOMS WILL NOT STOP THE SPREAD OF AIDS.
In fairness, if a couple are going to have sex, and one has AIDS, the use of a condom may postpone the contraction of AIDS or HIV for a time – perhaps even the duration of the relation. But condoms simply aren’t fool-proof, and they definitely are not a long-term solution to the AIDS/HIV epidemic.
In fact, such condom advocates as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Guttmacher Institute will admit that use-effectiveness of condoms tops off around 80-90%. What that means is that roughly 15 out of 100 average condom-using couples will get pregnant within a year of condom usage.
But now consider this:
The average woman has a roughly 28-30 day cycle, and within that time, there is only a 4-6 day window of fertility. That’s a 20% chance at any given time. That means for those 10-20% of women, the condom failed on the 1 in 5 chance period where they could conceive – so it may be failing for the other 80% but not giving evidence due to where the woman’s cycle is. Given that, the 10-20% use-failure could be as much as 5 times lower than it should be. Think about that, and think about this:
5 x 10-20% is 50-100%. Condoms may fail for half to ALL users within a years time.
But of those, only 1 in 5 would show evidence (for women). It only takes once to contract HIV/AIDS. So when you say “protect yourself but don’t stop having sex”, what you very well may be doing is giving a false sense of security which lulls people into worse behavior.
So…bleak picture, sure. But is there hope? Yes. A solution that DID work for millennia: Self Control and Abstinence – those sinful, naughty words touted by folks like those silly Catholics we love to lampoon.
“Wait just a second, Mr. Smarty Pants!” you might be saying, “everybody knows that ‘abstinence’ education has been an abysmal failure here in the states.” I will not deny that. But abstinence education in this country is not the end-all of moral philosophy.
The Western World has only viewed contraception as a morally licit option since the 1930’s (the Anglicans were the first to permit it, and though almost everyone else objected, most fell in line within a generation). Before that it was not talked of or practiced very openly or frequently or well – contraception was not staving off STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Yet in that time we saw nothing like the out of wed-lock pregnancy rates and STD infection rates we’ve seen in this last two generations. Why? Because condoms give a false sense of security, and have been part of an overall campaign to weaken our moral resolve and ability to resist our own passions – one of the few things that separates us from the other animals.
That hurts, doesn’t it? That’s not what you want to hear, is it? But consider not if it’s what you want, but rather if it might just be true.
“Hold on,” you might be saying, “condom’s would work better with better education.” Maybe. I’ll even grant “better”, but you’ll never get perfect use effectiveness. But in the heat of the moment, accidents happen; and educating Sub-Saharan Africa will probably be even harder than educating suburban Alabama or New York.
Condoms won’t solve the AIDS epidemic. Abstinence will. In fact, consider further this:
IF abstinence could be re-introduced into society, and people would practice it, within two generations nearly all cases of AIDS would be gone. GONE. AIDS passes primarily through sexual contact. Blood transfusions can pass it on, but that’s becoming a much more rare thing. And mother to child is essentially preventable with the right care.
So the next time you see the suggestion that condoms are the answer, think twice about whether or not this is the real solution…
You’re free to disagree, but make sure that your disagreement doesn’t cost others their lives.
- BTW, the middle picture, taken from Wikipedia, is of “A giant “condom” on the Obelisk of Buenos Aires, Argentina, part of an awareness campaign for the 2005 World AIDS Day“
March 10, 2009
Catholic Q&A: Infant Baptism
Q: Why do Catholics baptize babies? Shouldn’t the babies have a choice in their faith? When did this practice start?
A: The practice of infant baptism dates back to the New Testament, and has its roots in the Old Testament practice of circumcision. Circumcision was the covenantal sign given to Abraham, which brought him and all members of his tribe into a relationship with God the Father. All male members of the house 8 days old and up were circumcised (Gen. 17:12). Unless a male was circumcised, he did not belong to the covenant; this was what brought them in to the covenant.
In the New Testament, St. Paul clearly states that circumcision is replaced by baptism (Col 2:11-12). This alone is enough to show that infants ought to be baptized. St. Peter commands “Repent and be baptized each of yours, for the promise is made for you and for your children and all of those far off” (Acts 2:38-39). Peter is clearly stating that baptism is for all. (The word there for children is “teknon”, which is used to speak of John the Baptist being circumcised in Luke 1:59, and also in Acts 21:21 to speak of the 8 day old children who would be circumcised, which underscores the notion of baptism being proper and fitting for infants.) Just as entire houses were circumcised, so did Peter baptize the entire house of Cornelius (Acts 10:47-48); so too did Paul baptize the entire house of Lydia (Acts 16:15), and the jailer and his entire house (Acts 16:33).
This was the consistent practice of the early church. Hippolytus of Rome in 215 AD wrote: “And they shall baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” (The only argument here in the early church was whether or not waitng 8 days was necessary).
And this is consistent with the economics of salvation presented in the scriptures. In Mark 2 a paralytic is brought to Jesus. The text reads that “on seeing their faith” (the faith of the friends bringing the paralytic), Jesus says to the boy “your sins are forgiven”. As stated above, St. Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. And he clearly teaches that unbelieving members of a family (children and spouses) can be sanctified through the belief of other members, concluding, “otherwise your children would be unclean”. (1 Cor. 7:14)
Of course the children must choose to make the faith their own when they get older, but baptism is not just a sign of professed faith. It is a sacrament, which washes away the stain of original sin and imparts supernatural grace. “Baptism now saves you.” (1 Peter 3:21). Thus having real effect, it is both licit and proper to baptize infants.
March 3, 2009
Viva la Republic!
I don’t know that I agree 100% with the content of this video, but I found it moving, and I have always been a “Republic-an”, just not a “Republican”. I’m for the Republic.
February 19, 2009
February 13, 2009
Happy Feast of Sts. Cyril and Methodius…
Also, happy Valentines day. Amazon is celebrating by giving away a free MP3 of Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get it on“. So, go get it!
The two above sketches are from Randal Monroe’s webcomic, XKCD.
January 29, 2009
Super Bowl Ad: Imagine
Apparently there was a large push to get this ad played during the Super Bowl…God willing!
