Thursday, February 27, 2014

Abortion law changes eyed as Dr Mark Hobart probed

The Napthine government is not ruling out changes to Victoria's abortion laws ahead of an investigation into a doctor who refused to give a couple an abortion referral because they wanted a boy.
The state government said it was interested in the outcome of the Medical Board of Victoria's investigation into Mark Hobart, a pro-life doctor who has been accused of breaking the state's abortion laws.
It comes as pro-life advocates run a concerted campaign to repeal a section of the Abortion Law Reform Act, which requires doctors who have a conscientious objection to abortion to refer a woman to someone with no such objection.
When asked if there would be any changes to the act, which decriminalises abortion and was passed by parliament in 2008, a government spokesman said it respected the decision of the parliament on "this important issue".
But the spokesman said there was a variety of views across the parliament on the requirement for mandatory referral.
"All members of parliament will be interested in the board's decision and commentary on this case, and also in the views of the Australian Medical Association (Victorian Division) on these matters."
In keeping with past practice, it is likely there would be a conscience vote on any proposed changes to abortion laws.
....

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Darwinism, Design and Public Education




Darwin, Design, and Public Education -- New Book Examines the Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design and Advocates Teaching Both Darwinism and Design to Improve Science Education
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
January 8, 2004




Click here to buy your copy of "Darwinism, Design and Public Education" at Amazon.com today.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New book examines the scientific evidence for intelligent design and Darwinism and advocates teaching both to improve science education



SEATTLE — Darwinism, Design and Public Education (DDPE) is a peer-reviewed book published by Michigan State University Press that presents a multi-faceted scientific case for the theory of intelligent design while also examining the legal and pedagogical arguments for teaching students about the scientific controversies that surround the issue of biological origins. Contributors to the book include both leading scientific proponents of intelligent design and neo-Darwinism.

"The book establishes the existence of a vibrant scientific controversy between advocates of neo-Darwinism and the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design. It also develops a compelling argument for teaching students about this controversy," explains Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture and a co-editor and contributor to the book.

"Darwinism, Design and Public Education makes a case for the educational value of teaching science in a way that prepares lay people to understand it and approach it critically," adds co-editor Professor John Angus Campbell of the University of Memphis, a leading expert on the rhetorical structure of Darwin's classic book, The Origin of Species. "Students in the humanities are encouraged to doubt, question, and think critically about the theories presented to them, and so should students in the sciences."

In the first section of Darwinism, Design and Public Education, the contributors present a legal, and pedagogical case for teaching the scientific controversies about neo-Darwinism, including the controversy about whether natural selection can produce the "appearance of design" in biological systems. These essays emphasize the educational value of teaching students both the case for Darwinian evolution and scientific critiques of the theory.

In the next sections, Darwinism, Design and Public Education details scientific challenges to neo-Darwinism and develops an interdisciplinary scientific case for the competing theory of intelligent design. The book features essays that expand on existing scientific arguments for intelligent design based on the presence of information in DNA and the discovery of complex molecular machines in the cell. It also features new scientific arguments for design based on evidence in paleontology and comparative anatomy.

In the concluding section, prominent Darwinian scientists and humanities scholars critique the educational and scientific arguments presented in the earlier sections of the book. In this way, the book models the critical and open approach that its main contributors advocate as a matter of science education policy.

The book has been praised by leading scientists for bringing the controversy about neo-Darwinism and design into the public eye. Dr. Richard von Sternberg, a biologist at the Smithsonian Institution writes: "For over 30 years now an increasing number of thinkers in biology have questioned the major tenets of evolutionary theory. Into this scientific debate have entered the 'design theorists' who insist that the central issue is biological information, and whether this information can be generated by undirected material processes. The essays by various design theorists in Darwin, Design, and Public Education impress upon the reader that no amount of evasion or redefinition will make this problem go away. Though one may be disturbed by the implications of design theory, the papers in this book will educate the reader concerning the scientific assumptions at stake, and the reasoning behind the positions taken on the design issue."

Humanities scholars have also praised the book for its handling of the educational policy issue.

"This new volume plays an important role in restoring reasoned arguments about evolution to public scrutiny and discussion," said David Kaufer, head of the Department of English at Carnegie Mellon University.

"Darwinism, Design, and Public Education should be read by everyone seeking a fair and comprehensive debate about the teaching of evolution in American public schools," adds James Arnt Aune from Texas A&M University. "This book's careful yet passionate dialogue actually provides the tools needed by a democratic public to make sense of this difficult controversy."

The publisher Michigan State University Press submitted the book to a rigorous peer-review process that included reviews by an Ivy-league professor of biological sciences, and professors of philosophy of science and rhetoric.

DDPE is available in bookstores, from Amazon.com or directly from the publisher at http://msupress.msu.edu/.

To arrange author interviews or request review copies please call Rob Crowther at (206) 292-0401 x.107



About the editors
John Angus Campbell
(Ph.D., rhetoric, University of Pittsburgh) is a professor and director of graduate studies in the Department of Communication at the University of Memphis. He has twice won the Golden Anniversary Award from the National Communication Association (1971 and 1987) for his scholarly essays and was a recipient of the Distinguished Teaching Award (1993) and the Dean's Recognition Award (1994) from the University of Washington. Most recently, he was named Communication Educator of the Year by the Tennessee State Communication Association (2001). In his research, he has specialized in the study of the rhetoric of science and is one of the founders of this increasingly important and growing academic subspecialty. He has published numerous highly regarded technical articles and book chapters analyzing the rhetorical strategy of Darwin's Origin of Species. He recently guest edited and contributed to a special issue on the intelligent design argument in the Journal of Rhetorical & Public Affairs (vol. 1, no. 4). He is at work on a scholarly book with the working title, Charles Darwin: A Rhetorical Biography.

Stephen C. Meyer
(Ph.D., history and philosophy of science, University of Cambridge) is director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle, Washington and serves as University Professor, Conceptual Foundations of Science at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Florida. Meyer has worked previously as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company and a professor of philosophy at Whitworth College. He is coauthor of the book, Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe (2002). Meyer has contributed to numerous scholarly books, including the forthcoming Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge University Press 2004). He has written for publications such as the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, National Review, and First Things. He has appeared on television and radio programs such as Fox News, PBS's TechnoPolitics and Freedom Speaks, MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, and NPR's Talk of the Nation and Science Friday. He coauthored the film Unlocking the Mystery of Life, which has recently aired on PBS stations around the country. Meyer's testimony before the Ohio State Board of Education and his subsequent editorials in the Cincinnati Inquirer and the Columbus Dispatch influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's 2002 decision to require students to "critically analyze" evolutionary theory -- the first statewide endorsement of the "teach the controversy" approach advocated by many of the contributors to this volume.




Attached Files:

File: DDPE Flyer.pdf - 57k
Description: Darwinism, Design and Public Education sales sheet



The work of Discovery Institute is made possible by the generosity of its members. Click here to donate.

....

Taken from: http://www.discovery.org/a/1694

About the EditorsAbout the ContributorsAdditional Resources

What is intelligent design?

....

See also:

Intelligent Design: Finding Its Rightful Place in Public Education
G. Alexandre Lenferna

A Review of “Darwin’s Doubt” by Stephen Meyer



Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, by Stephen C. Meyer, New York: Harper Collins, 2013, xii + 498 pages, hdbk.

 
Stephen Meyer has been a thorn in the side of dogmatic evolutionists for a good while now. He has worked as a geophysicist and has a PhD in the Philosophy of Science from Cambridge. His previous book of nearly 600 pages, Signature in the Cell, dealt with the criteria for determining information, especially in the formation and function of cells. It went into some detail about so-called ‘Shannon Information,’ which is most often the kind pointed out by evolutionists. Shannon calculated the mathematical relationship between information and probability, showing that the amount of information conveyed by an event is inversely related to its probability. The trouble with Shannon’s theory was that it could not distinguish meaningful information from gibberish. The solution to that problem forms another part of the book. Meyer demonstrates that complex specified information has both very high mathematical improbability, while also being goal-centered.
Then Signature included Meyer’s long interactions with the computer simulations of Kuppers, Dawkins, Schneider, Kauffman, Avida, showing that they all presuppose what they are claimed to disprove: the need for an intelligent agent. Additionally, none of them fulfill their promises. The DNA molecule came under investigation throughout Signature, and the vaunted “scientific method” was examined, and it was shown that along with it being a fluid concept, many scientists devoted to it actually utilize intelligent design in their work.
Now comes Darwin’s Doubt. Weighing in at almost 500 pages, it continues the discussion, this time focusing on the so-called Cambrian Explosion, where “representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the fossil record made their first appearance on earth.” (31).
Like its predecessor, the book makes it a point to interact with contemporary evolutionary thought. Meyer has been careful to be as cutting edge as possible. Here we get his patient explanations of Darwin’s Tree of Life and its modern counterparts. He examines the Burgess Shale Bestiary, where huge deposits of Cambrian fauna are present, and the even more impressive Chengjiang Explosion in China. If Darwin were right about what we ought to find, “diversity would precede disparity, the phyla-level differences in the body plan would emerge after the species-, genus-, family-, order-, and class level differences appeared…The actual pattern in the fossil record, however, contradicts this expectation.” (41).
Meyer’s personal acquaintance with two of the main experts working at Chengjiang, J. Y. Chen and Paul Chien, helps him relate their results compellingly. The dramatic finds of wonderfully preserved Cambrian fossil body-plans have only intensified the “problem” of the Cambrian Explosion. They have no ancestors in the underlying rock! He asks,
“Could there have been an animal form simple enough to serve as a viable ancestor common to all the animal phyla? Perhaps. But positing such a form only deepens the required depth of the divergence point and intensifies the already significant problem of Precambrian – Cambrian discontinuity.” (113).
To put it more simply, the best deposits the fossil record has to offer display a vastly diversified array of animal body plans, which just appear out of nowhere. Speculating about their ancestry drives the evolutionary dating further into the murky past, and forces the matter of the absence of ancestors in the Cambrian rock into sharper focus.
Chapter 6, on “The Animal Tree of Life” exposes the many disagreements among prominent evolutionists about what the phylogenetic “Tree” ought to look like, before examining the actual data of the fossil, the anatomical, and molecular evidence. Meyer concludes, “These three classes of evidence either provide no compelling evidence for Precambrian animal ancestors (in the case of the fossils), or they provide question-begging and conflicting evidence (in the case of genes and anatomy).” (135).
The matter of stasis, which is crystal clear in the fossil record, is also becoming more and more clearly a problem for evolution in the hoped-for field of phylogeny.
After a chapter on punctuated equilibrium, Meyer introduces the matter of the “information explosion” in the Cambrian fossil fauna. Here, just as in his previous book, he again distinguishes Shannon information from complex specified (or targeted) information. This is followed by an important chapter on “Combinatorial Inflation.” To put in layman’s terms, the amount of characters for arrangement increases exponentially the number of possible combinations available. As evolution’s big draw is that it can supposedly blindly ferret out and retain the right combinations to produce a properly functioning gene, minus any goal, the time it would take for that to happen randomly is obviously a key matter. Relying on the most recent work done in the field, Meyer shows that four plus billion years posited by neo-Darwinism, is way too brief for this to even begin to occur.
A chapter on the need for mutations to generate new protein folds relies on the work of Douglas Axe, who tested the probability involved in producing new protein folds after reading Richard Dawkins. The author tells us, “Axe realized that the ability to produce new protein folds represents a sine qua non of macroevolutionary innovation.” (191). After surveying Axe’s experiments, the author observes that Dawkins’ fancy of “Scaling Mount Improbable” incrementally is a non-starter. This is because “there is effectively no gradually sloping back side, since the smallest increment of structural innovation in the history of life – a new protein fold – itself presents a formidable Mount Improbable.” (207).
The ensuing chapter reviews the disingenuous and unsatisfactory responses of evolutionists (e.g. from M. Long, exon shuffling) to these results by Axe. Meyer is nothing if not thorough in describing these positions, and it took some effort from this reviewer not to skip this section.
A chapter on the Neo-Darwinian math highlights the fact that,
“In sum, calculations performed by both critics [Behe] and defenders [Durrett & Schmidt] of neo-Darwinian evolution now reinforce the same conclusion: if coordinated mutations are necessary to generate new genes and proteins, then the …math itself, as expressed in the principles of population genetics, establishes the implausibility of the neo-Darwinian mechanism.” (249, italics his).
Meyer then discusses “co-option” before focusing on the work of C. Nusslein-Volhard and E. Wieschaus on the origin of body plans, and Eric Davidson on gene regulatory networks or dGRN’s (ch.13). This chapter effectively sinks the standard evolutionary dogma. Davidson is cited as describing dGRN’s in “informational terms.” (268). Meyer adds,
“Engineers have long understood that the more functionally integrated a system is, the more difficult it is to change any part of it without damaging or destroying the system as a whole. Davidson’s work confirms that this principle applies to developing organisms in spades.” (269).
The fallout from this shouldn’t be missed. It is that in the vital early stages of development, when mutation and selection need to be driving evolution, that is precisely when their involvement would be fatal to gene development (see 270). This effectively dismantles classic neo-Darwinian theory.
But Meyer hasn’t finished yet. Next comes a survey of the necessary role taken by epigenetic information – that is to say, there is developmental information which is not in DNA but in the structure of the cell that determines to a large extent what the animal will look like. There are other varieties of epigenetic information, such as in the “sugar code” (280-281). This part of the book is most closely allied to Signature in the Cell, and advances the case made there.
As Meyer points out throughout the book, many evolutionists are trying to change the standard approach in light of these conclusions. Meyer runs through several proposed self-organizational models (e.g. Hox genes; M. Lynch’s ‘right time, right place’ theory; J. Shapiro’s natural genetic engineering view ) in Part Three, and finds them all wanting. Only after all this does he turn finally to the Intelligent Design alternative (the first mention of design I could find was on page 215). He returns to several of his previous topics and interprets them in line with information and design theory. Meyer urges his reader to stand back, take the evolutionary blinkers off, and look at what the data is telling him. He writes,
“Conscious and rational agents have, as part of their powers of purposive intelligence, the capacity to design information-rich parts and to organize those parts into functional information-rich hierarchies. We know of no other causal entity or process that has this capacity.” (366).
He goes on to deal with the hegemony of science as methodological naturalism, in the face of the fact that, as said above, scientists often use intelligent design in their work. He also demonstrates that the definition of science is and always has been an elastic concept. He believes that scientific progress is now actually being held up due to the naturalistic philosophy encouraged by evolutionism (which will alert readers of Thomas Kuhn), and plies a way forward which is both consonant with former scientific practices, and with what really happens in contemporary academia. Of course, Meyer is no fan of a young earth, not basing his science upon the biblical witness. The book is, of course, heavily furnished with endnotes.
Darwin’s Doubt is more hard-going than its predecessor. At least it was for me. But it is another step forward towards a new paradigm for doing science – tracking the work of the Designer.

....

Taken from: http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/a-review-of-darwins-doubt-by-stephen-meyer/

Unintended Consequences: How Hostile Responses to Darwin’s Doubt Turned a Thoughtful Reader Against Darwinian Evolution



A bumper sticker I've seen around in Seattle protests the War on Terror, warning that "We're making enemies faster than we can kill them..." Without wading into matters of national defense and military strategy, I'll give the author of the slogan this much: Any strategy that focuses too much on attacking people, and not enough on making reasoned arguments, is doomed to fail in winning hearts and minds. For an illustration, take a look at a post by Reverend James Miller, of Glenkirk Church in Glendora, CA. He recently explained that he became a Darwin skeptic not just after reading Darwin's Doubt, but also after considering responses from critics of the book. Under the title "Changing My Mind on Darwin," Pastor Miller writes:I've just read Stephen Meyer's Darwin's Doubt. Meyer is a Cambridge PhD in philosophy of science. He hangs out with the Intelligent Design people. His writing is fluid, detailed, and reasonable. He seems to know what he's talking about. The book makes the case for the fact that the fossil record doesn't support Darwinism. The sudden appearance of new phyla without sufficient time for the mutation and selection process to work is simply unaccounted for by the rocks. The problem is that when Meyer says things like, "the Precambrian fossil record simply does not document the gradual emergence of the crucial distinguishing characteristics of the Cambrian animals," how on earth should I know if he's right? I don't have time to immerse myself in paleontology. I'll never be an expert. I just have four hundred pages of articulate, self-assured, well-documented evidence for Meyer's case.Pastor Miller conveys a sentiment that I think is quite reasonable and fairly common. The debate over Darwinism can be technical and complex. Proponents and opponents of neo-Darwinian theory alike cite evidence for their cases. If you haven't had the opportunity to study the scientific questions in detail, it can be difficult to know who is right. If you're not an expert in the science, how can you make an informed decision? Pastor Miller explains that when he enters a complex debate, he seeks to read arguments from different views. He looks at the evidence and the arguments, but he also tries to determine who is sincere and credible. Does one side make serious arguments, while the other persistently resorts to personal attacks and name-calling? If so, that can tell you something. Miller explains that he seeks to understand who is behaving as if the evidence is on their side, and who is trying to compensate for a weak position:So here's how I find my way into a conversation on subjects that are not my primary field of study. I read the reviews that are antagonistic to the source and just look at the logic that's employed. I find that this often gives me the best read on a work. If the critics are sincere, the reviews are usually precise. The New Yorker's review began with a genetic fallacy, presented arguments that Meyer had refuted without mentioning that Meyer had addressed them, and then deferred to another blogger for the scientific content of the review. It then called Meyer "absurd," which, given how shoddy the review actually is, was an absurd thing to do. Then I read the review from which the New Yorker piece got its "science," which was actually written by a grad student at Berkeley. Now I have to say that Berkeley is, in fact, one of my fields of expertise, and I know exactly how Berkeley grad students go about their "work." Somehow Berkeley selects the crazies and the militants who show the most promise and then teaches them that knowledge is a completely subjective power tool which should be manipulated by those on an ideological crusade to undermine authority. I'm not kidding. I went to Berkeley. That's what we did. What's interesting about the grad student's review is that it was posted 24 hours after the release of Meyer's book, and it's filled with snark. He's not having an intelligent conversation, he's insulting Meyer in order to defend something religiously. In a later, defensive review, the grad student says that he read the book "during lunch." He read over 400 pages of scientific material during lunch, and then posted an insulting review. He says his detractors are just "slow readers." People who win speed-reading competitions tend to cover 1,000 words per minute (maybe 4 pages) with 50% comprehension. That level of comprehension is almost useless, and it becomes less useful the more information-rich the content. A book of Meyer's size would have taken an hour and forty minutes at that pace, with minimal retention, and that's if you're not, oh, say, eating lunch. On top of that, the review is almost 10,000 words long, which would take some time to write, making it highly suspicious that the review was written after the book was read and not before, in anticipation of the book's release. See, this is how I know who to trust in academic communities. The charlatans have no character. You read the grad student's defenses of his review (and they sound a little panicked), and you realize that he has been following Christians around and arguing with them for years with an inquisitor's zeal. There's a personal agenda here, and his approach to new information on the subject is anything but scientific.That "grad student," of course, is Nick Matzke, who subsequently went to Pastor Miller's blog in an apparent attempt to deconvert Miller from Darwin-skepticism. (To be fair to Nick, besides lunchtime, he claims that he allowed himself "snippets of the afternoon..., and then most of the rest of it that night and the next morning" for reading and digesting this massively documented book. Not that that alleviates the problem much.) In any case, you might expect that if your own incivility was the cause of someone's turning away from a viewpoint you want to advance, then you'd try to win them back by being civil and making a respectful, strictly fact-based appeal. If so, then you're not Nick Matzke. That's not how Darwin-defenders think. When confronted with the reality that their style of argument is actually turning people off, Darwin lobbyists often double-down on the nasty rhetoric, evidently thinking the problem was that they weren't harsh enough to begin with. Thus Matzke wrote in response to Miller:If one is already familiar with the science, it's pretty annoying to see someone like Meyer come in, do a totally hack job which misunderstands or leaves out most of the key data, statistical methods, etc., and then declare that the whole field is bogus. That's why critics are annoyed. And, it's annoying to see other conservative evangelicals blindly follow in his footsteps. Sometimes I think an intelligent design person could say that the idea that the moon is made of rock is a Darwinist conspiracy, and you guys would believe him.So ID proponents are conspiracy theorists who might say the moon isn't made of rock? And Pastor Miller follows those crazy people? Nick Matzke must think that the best way to bring people over to your side is by demonizing and bullying them -- the more, the better. Pastor Miller had a fitting response:Actually, Nick, I read Meyer, and you're misrepresenting him through flippant rhetoric rather than simply engaging the facts. You and I both know that he didn't "declare that the whole field is bogus." And your insistence on mischaracterizing his work is a sign that you're not confident that the facts alone discredit him. As opposed to folly, following the motives and methods of debaters gives you real psychological insight on what they're trying to accomplish, and the scientific enterprise has always prided itself on its objectivity, something we haven't seen from you. I have the sense that you are actually a brilliant mind. Balance it with character and humility and you'll have far more credibility. I personally would be glad to hear what you have to say if I didn't have to wade through the disrespect.This recalls the old saying, "When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the facts aren't on your side, pound the table." People know this intuitively. Pastor Miller was discerning enough to see how Nick Matzke's disrespect and table-pounding showed that Matzke's viewpoint has a problem with the facts.
- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/unintended_cons079591.html#sthash.m5LxQEeg.dpuf

Friday, February 7, 2014

Darwin's Doubt by Stephen C. Meyer




The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design

 
 
Stephen C. Meyer on Darwin's Doubt
May 15, 2013
Discovery @ Northwest U Lecture Series

Wednesday, May 15th, 7pm
Northwest University


When Charles Darwin finished The Origin of Species, he thought that he had explained every clue, but one. Though his theory could explain many facts, Darwin knew that there was a significant event in the history of life that his theory did not explain. During this event, known today as the “Cambrian explosion,” many animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record without apparent ancestors in earlier layers of rock. In Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen C. Meyer tells the story of the mystery surrounding this explosion of animal life "a mystery that has intensified, not only because the expected ancestors of these animals have not been found, but also because scientists have learned more about what it takes to construct an animal.

During the last half century biologists have come to appreciate the central importance of biological information "stored in DNA and elsewhere in cells "to building animal forms. Expanding on the compelling case he presented in his last book, Signature in the Cell, Meyer argues that the origin of this information, as well as other mysterious features of the Cambrian event, are best explained by intelligent design, rather than purely undirected evolutionary processes.

This FREE event will be held in the Butterfield Chapel on the campus of Northwest University. The event begins at 7pm, with doors opening at 6:30pm.

While the event is FREE, space is limited and registration is required. REGISTER NOW

For a campus map and directions to the university, go to the Northwest University website.
Darwin's Doubt represents an opportunity for bridge-building, rather than dismissive polarization.
—Dr. George Church
Professor of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, author of Regenesis
An excellent book and a must read.
—Dr. Russell Carlson
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia
Stephen Meyer has masterfully laid out one of the most compelling lines of evidence for intelligent design.
Dr. William S. Harris
Professor, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota
An engaging investigation of the origin of animal life.
—Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig
Senior Scientist Emeritus (Biologist), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
DARWIN’S DOUBT
The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design


Darwin's Doubt represents an opportunity for bridge-building, rather than dismissive polarization.
—Dr. George Church
Professor of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, author of Regenesis
An intriguing exploration.
Dr. Scott Turner
Professor of Biology, State University of New York, author of The Tinkerer’s Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself
An excellent book and a must read.
—Dr. Russell Carlson
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia
Stephen Meyer has masterfully laid out one of the most compelling lines of evidence for intelligent design.
Dr. William S. Harris
Professor, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota
An engaging investigation of the origin of animal life.
—Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig
Senior Scientist Emeritus (Biologist), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany

“… the UN feels it has some sort of superior mandate to set norms of sexual behaviour”.

Fear of francis phenomenon


 
IF there is one area where your opinion columnist provokes the ire of a certain type of reader, it is on the topic of religion.

Only about religion, especially when it touches on the Catholic Church, do I get a lot of very negative correspondence – and then some.
Admittedly, lately there seems to have been only one story about the church and that is the seemingly endless one of the sex-abuse crisis. But then, last March, a new story emerged: the Francis phenomenon.
The European press is full of Pope Francis. Everyday we hear about the new Pope’s various eccentricities and style, but very little about what he really thinks. We know the new Pope, like previous popes, wants to end corruption and tackle some of the institutional problems that led to this crisis in the first place.
The church does have to keep on addressing this problem, at every level and all the time, in many different ways. In the West, the fact it is doing so hasn’t really quelled the criticism from the secularists.
There will never be accord between the secularists and the church on this, as a new report from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child illustrates.
The Holy See has had an uneasy relationship with the UN for a very long time now, partly because it is a very different kind of entity from any other nation-state: no temporal power at all but huge moral authority.
Meanwhile, the moral authority of the UN is dwindling, along with its malleable attitude to its own charter of human rights, and the corruption of many of its agencies.
The new report on the rights of the child has concentrated on repeated, and often justified, criticisms of the church. It may seem the UN has decided the new papacy is just the right time to respond to the church’s attempts to tackle this problem, via the UN representatives to the Holy See.
But that is not actually what the report is about. If it had confined itself to the administrative, practical area, that would have been perfectly fine.
However, it goes much further. It makes demands on the teachings of the church, which no secular organisation is justified in making. The UN exposes its deep ideological agenda in this report.
Not content to recommend ways in which abuse of minors can be exposed and tackled through institutional avenues, the UN has decided to give the successor of Peter a bit of a lesson in modern sexual mores, which it seems to think is a very successful way of implementing the rights of the child. So it has suggested the church change its teaching on contraception, abortion and, of course, “gender” – that is, homosexuality.
Considering the mess that liberalising sexual mores has made of 21st-century Western family life, it is strange indeed that the UN feels it has some sort of superior mandate to set norms of sexual behaviour.
It also seems rather pointless for the UN to suggest the church change its view on sexual morality when the UN has been less than successful in its own pursuit of the rights of the child, with the activities of sexual predators (some of whom are even Australian) making a multi-million-dollar business out of peddling children on the internet.
Not only that, in recommending the church have a more lax attitude to abortion the UN committee also recommends the ultimate abrogation of the child’s rights, and a contradiction of its own charter.
The preamble of the Rights of the Child speaks of the child’s rights “before and after birth”. Hypocrisy and doublethink is deeply emebdded in the UN rights agenda.
So why does the UN presume to make demands on church teaching when it knows the church cannot succumb?
It is simple, really. By doing so, and pointing to the intransigence of the church, the UN has tried to embarrass the Holy See, generate yet more negative publicity about what simple-minded secularists call “church policies”, and thus undermine the Francis phenomenon.
Nevertheless, at least the UN notes with approval that Pope Francis has set up a committee to create a special commission to deal with sexual abuse cases at the hands of clergy, to work with local authorities to prosecute offenders and to help victims.
The problem is that the church is global, with more reach than the UN, and it will take a long time to sort this.
In Australia, there has already been change. Oddly, there has been a rise in the number of vocations and many of these have emerged from the phenomenon of the new ecclesial movements, some of which use radically different styles of worship while maintaining Catholic orthodoxy.
The Missionaries of God’s Love, a new Australian order of priests started in Canberra, are an example of this.
They take a radical vow of poverty, they have a long period of discernment, and they are not trained in the old strict institutional model, which can be blamed for a lot of the stultifying, warping effect that caused the flourishing of sexual misconduct in the past.
Rather, they live within the community and have a lot of contact with lay people. Happy clappies are not everyone’s cup of tea, certainly not mine, but the modern church is less hung up on rubrics and more interested in substance.
The church won’t change overnight, but it is changing, and the new papacy is not just an engine of change; Pope Francis is almost a personification of it.