Election 2016 - What does Roe v. Wade say?

I just finished my final short essay for Constitutional Law which I had to review all the case opinions on abortion. Since it is a presidential election year many people are pretending to act like they deeply care about the life of the unborn per their moral duty every four years. Regardless how “settled” this issue is, it is one of the essential topics that must be addressed by both sides during the political campaigns. At the same time, with the knowledge I have concerning the present constitutional status of abortion, the only influence the President can offer is concerning the Supreme Court. In many ways this election cycle could be summarized as “All About the Court.” As one who takes great interest and joy in studying the Courts, it is certainly reasonable that so much concern is given to the judicial nominees. It is just sad because the Court was designed to be the “least dangerous branch.”

As candidates, journalists, and pundits weigh in on the abortion I have heard numerous times all they wanted was the continued survival of Roe. It was such proclamations that echoed the attacks or defense of the Texas case before the Supreme Court a few months ago. However, if one listened to the oral argument the concern was not for Roe, but for Casey. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) was the all important case that reaffirmed Roe but also established the “undue burden” test. Thus any law that seeks to limit or affect abortion must not incur an “undue burden.” This case I think is the real barrier to any redress of abortion by the democratic process.

The actual issue of Roe was the grounds by which a woman might have the right to an abortion. Under the chain of cases that started in 1965 with the availability of birth control for married couples, a right of privacy was recognized. A hop and a skip and that right to privacy struck down bans on interracial marriage, then opened up access to birth control for non-married women, which was followed by Roe. The justification of Roe stood and still stands on the every growing absolute right to privacy, at least concerning intimate matters. It would not be a stretch that if one desires unlimited rights to a particular area, they need only to fetishize it and the Court will grant the utmost respect.

In addition to Roe declaring a right to abortion existed, it also denied the fetus personhood. The denial was so adamant that “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14] Amendment.” The Court has refrained from defining what a fetus is, only saying what it is not. Instead of making such a medical and philosophical judgement the Court declared the attributes of personhood depended on “viability.” The Court has also refrained from making a clear definition of viability. In fact, they have gone out of their way to deny any other institution from defining viability,

In the process, we made clear that the trimester framework incorporated only one definition of viability—ours—as we forbade States to decide that a certain objective indicator—“be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor”—should govern the definition of viability. (Casey)

Roe set not standards on the level of access one must have to abortion. That was actually Doe v. Bolton (1973), decided on the same day as Roe. So, the next time a politician, pundit, or acquaintance wants to laud the liberties of Roe, you will know what the text actually says and what the argument relies upon. At what point will the humanity of the unborn be realized? I do not know. With all the talk about “being on the right side of history” I hope the realization will happen sooner than later.

Response to Top 25 Creationist Fallacies

I was busy downloading as much material I possibly could to be prepared for the next year of absence from Youtube and Itunes when I came across a special jewel. I had some stimulating conversations with friends earlier in the day concerning the works Indoctrinate U and Expelled so my mind was already turning. I spent the last several nights keeping my late night entertainment limited to that of America and Britain's Got Talent shows, and watching clips of Happy Tree Friends and other funny videos.

Anyways, surfing away for more Ben Stein clips I come across Top 25 Creationist Fallacies in the ranks. I started watching, well because I don't really plan on sleeping and I need to ensure Itunes gets all the beginning Greek lessons downloaded as well as see what else I can grab for free. I write this as a point-by-point response to the video maker. It seems of better quality than typical and having watched the first several minutes, I am in a blogging mood.

If you so desire to watch this 23 minute video and read what I have to say I suggest you pause it at appropriate points. Then again it may be easier to open a separate tab/window to watch the video and scroll along the reading.

1. Foundational Bias: There is no doubt that Ken Ham is bias in his approach. Is that grounds to disqualify his ability to think and observe/interpret evidence at hand? We are all bias, how much we are willing to admit to it varies. Allow me to point to Richard Lewontin's Billions and Billions of Demons

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say 

anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

I dare not alter the text, it speaks for itself. Bias exists based on worldview, whether either party is willing to admit to that bias it varies from person to person regardless of the content of their bias. Ken Ham defined his bias being that of a biblical worldview which is explained in AIG's (Answers in Genesis) mission statement.

2. Straw Man Argument: Well explained, fairly useful summary of the fallacy, no argument until he uses the example. I have mentioned in previous blogs about my disagreements with Way of the Master and their rather anti-intellectual approach to evangelism. This happens to be a decent example; however, having seen the full episode it is not uncommon method that WOTM doesn't intellectually answer objections to faith. I suppose to setup a more correct setup would to spend more time to explain the Big Bang theory in greater depth. I personally have not found an issue with the concept "there was nothing and out of nothing there was an explosion that created everything"; because I believe God caused the explosion. While that might sound illogical to a materialist, I am satisfied because I believe in the supernatural. It seems easier to me to believe that out of nothing God created everything then out of nothing, nothing created/caused everything... or wait, am I just offering another straw man argument? Often, a Straw man can be interpreted as a poor summary.

3. Hasty Generalization: The document claiming to make the "hasty generalization" is the Dissent From Darwinism, which simply is an acknowledgement of various accredited/academic people whom state  

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." 

They define random mutation and natural selection as the exact topics of dissent because to contest evolution is careless and rather dangerous. There are many forms of evolution, the most basic textbook example will introduce evolution as "change over time", often exemplified in what is known as micro-evolution or variation. Micro-evolution seems to imply that new minute traits were expressed as a form of evolution while variation simply implies that the traits are expressed traits which had existed in the genetic code in which no new information was added. The verbiage of the Dissent document is precise to ensure no mistake in the claim. In those terms, what is so dangerous about questioning descent with modification doctrine and putting it under serious scrutiny? The document doesn't say they believe it is wrong, false or any other damning verbs, just that they are not certain and believe random mutation and natural selection should be examined. I would put money on it that Expelled will mention Micheal Behe's Darwin's Black Box which points out that there has never been serious scientific scrutiny applied to evolutionary theory at the academic level to explore the operation of natural selection or random mutation at the biochemical level. Michael Behe goes further to point out there has not been studies to confirm how complex operations such as eyesight, flagellum locomotion and many other cellular mechanisms.

4. Argument From Authority: I would be foolish to hope he wouldn't use Kent Hovind, while I dare not judge a man's faith his message implies a form of theocratic or anti-government political stance. Thus he was imprisoned for tax fraud in 2007, destroying much of his credibility. Dr. Hovind's credentials were that he has his doctorate in science and was a teacher for 15 years or so. While I wouldn't call this a lie it is not the full truth, as I recall it the degree was from a Christian organization not fully accredited and the degree was in Christian education. He taught at Christian schools. I do believe Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) used his credentials in a misleading way. Oh yea, his sidekick in the video clip is his son. I am not aware of any other creationists whom flagrantly use this fallacy. I am not fond of Kent Hovind's tone, style or behavior towards evolutionists, the evidence he presents regarding age of the Earth, Dinosaurs, and the pre-Flood Earth is interesting to say the least.

5. Ad Hominem: I wonder how many people are aware of the full title of Origin of Species; it is viewable at 5:04. If "races" was meant by "species" then why wouldn't the book have repeated species instead of using races? The video maker does not reference the claim; it is my interpretation that "races" was in reference to human races. At the most innocent level it would be a higher classification than species perhaps order or class. It is easy to claim Ad Hominem when one does not include the full argument. Since the Ken Ham clip was cut, it cannot be known if the argument was further developed. However, it is true that in the late 19th century eugenics was popularized. I cannot prove that Darwinist evolution is the directly responsible for the Eugenics movement in the early 20th century and possibly a motivating cause for the Holocaust, the two can logically go hand in hand. If humans are the result of higher development then eugenics are possibly a form of selective breeding? I would also like to point out that the first minute of the video was almost entirely ad Hominem attacks.

6. Ad Populum: Wow, he asserted that Truth exists... I am speechless. Not really, though rather surprised. Kent Hovind's example clip... yea shot down. I likely won't be too much help to Kent in the rest of this.

7. Quote Mining: He points out that Stephen Jay Gould's quote about a lack of transitional fossils as a fallacy? Allow me to attempt to summarize Dr. Gould's theory (I actually don't know if it was theory or hypothesis via the scientific method) of Punctuated Equilibrium. As I recall this was in response to the seeming explosion in the fossil records in which developed fossils of various species have been found in leaps and bounds. The phylogenetic tree has been used as an example from simple life to be linked as the common ancestor to major classes: mammals, reptiles, amphibians etcetera. The existence of transitional fossils between reptiles and mammals for instance, or lack thereof, was popularly explained in two manners. One, punctuated equilibrium which millions of micro-evolutionary changes built up over millions of years which lead to an explosion of development to produce new classes of creatures, this was also proposed as a response that micro-evolutionary changes which did not add up to gradual eyesight or fish evolving to amphibians. The other manner of arguing the lack of transitional fossils was suggesting that instead of a common ancestor, instead there were multiple fully developed common ancestors. This would resemble many central points in the phylogenetic tree image instead a single origin. The possibility of many common ancestors also matches with the Biblical account of creation in which it says God created animals according to their "kinds" such as dogs, cats, primates etc.

8. Man on the Street Interview: I can't conceive why Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron are being supposed as Top Creationists... they intellectually made fools of Christianity in the televised debate with Rational Response. What is sad, basic theology or apologetical training could have actually had them stand a chance instead of showing the world yet another example of the lack of intellectualism in the faith. There are educated answers, they just didn't give them. Perhaps I should revisit this debate at length, let me know if I should bother, these do take some time.

9. Non-Sequitur: Kirk was doing so good until he used the absurd picture... I shake my head. In my opinion to more eloquently pull off the ad absurdum argument he should establish a more believable example, such as the Archaeopteryx as the supposed feathered reptile when instead it has been classified as a bird.

10. Red Herring: Distraction technique with a boot? The argument seems logical. The claim: long time is required to make fossils. The response: a fossilized cowboy boot is offered as evidence that it does not take a long time to fossilize materials. Long time is often referred to in the millions of years, by giving the example of a fossilized boot it is implied that the boot did not take millions of years to fossilize effectively answering the claim.

11. Personal Incredulity: While the video clip does not explain the full complexity of the bacterial flagellum, the form of locomotion at the bacterial level observed by a biochemist, his book devotes one of the most painful chapters to read about the irreducibly complex system of the flagellum. It is easy to claim fallacies are being used when one uses 30 seconds of a clip as examples.

12. Argument from Ignorance: Interesting that this is titles Top 25 Fallacies when I have really only seen two credible Intelligent Design proponents. Note: Intelligent Design is not synonymous with Creationists. Intelligent Design is a much broader form of origins that isn't even Christianity specific. I question the example's credibility and authority when she is referenced as the "Orange Lady"; her established identity is based upon her tint on the video...

13. Violation of the Philosophy of Science: This is follows the hijacked definition of science being synonymous with materialism i.e. the supernatural does not exist. Scientifically speaking because the supernatural cannot be observed, tested, and repeated, which are the points required for the scientific method, science indeed cannot prove the supernatural. However, the scientific method cannot disprove the supernatural because if an event can be observed, tested, and repeated then it would be classified under the scientific method of natural order. Isn't that a Straw Man? As noted in the Billions and Billions of Demons excerpt, materialism is an a priori belief. Lee Strobel is simplifying Paley's teleological argument. Essentially by observing complex machines occurring in the natural world one can logically deduce that an intelligent being caused those machines.

12. Equivocation: I would agree many people confuse theory by definition of the scientific method versus definition of the American language. Theory is the result of supposed multiple tests and just before it is established as law. However, Theory maintains a fair amount of gray area still based upon the experiments that formed the hypothesis and eventually became the theory. I would also like to point out the unidentified Islamic gentlemen is not what I would consider to be one of the Top 25 Creationists.

13. False Dichotomy: The character presenting one of the theological arguments is exactly right. By the contradiction of circumstances such as sin and then death or death and then sin it does come down to one or the other. However, I advise this argument to only be used with other Christians because the authority of Scripture must be agreed upon.

14. Begging the Question: I have heard Begging the Question being more like Straw Man than circular reasoning, but let's have it. The example questioned is the astronomical first cause, much related to the Big Bang. The theological advantage of the Big Bang is that it proves that there was a first cause. While the Intelligent Design adherent can credit the Designer with causing the bang, the atheist/evolutionist cannot. They are stuck with nothing blew up into everything. The example was not begging the question but implied reasoning.

15: Tautology: The claim is that without gravity no complex atomic structures would exist. This is a butchered version of fine tuning in which there are something like 300+ independent extremely precise constants found in the world, be it the exact rotational axis of the Earth, its rotational speed, distance from the sun, at the planetary level, down to the molecular characteristics that water's solid state floats and hydrogen's extraordinary strong bonding force. The examples of fine tuning get much larger and smaller than planetary and molecular scales. The significance behind fine tuning is that if a single one of the independent variables was off by a slight fraction then no life at all would have been possible on earth. It is a more complex form of the Teleological Argument on the largest and smallest scales.

16. False Premise: The evidence that the Universe had a beginning comes from the Big Bang. The argument that the universe ever "not existed" claims that the universe is in the same state as it has always been. The counter to the claim is exemplified by the expanding universe, the burning of stars and such. Suggesting that the universe has always existed argues for infinite existence, which is not observable, measurable, testable, or repeatable. Often arguing for infinite existence is attempted by the philosophers not the astronomers. The only issue with infinite existence is that infinity does not exist in reality.

17. Ad Hoc Reasoning: Sadly Kent Hovind is skilled with Ad Hoc; however the Canopy Theory is established as part of the Hovind Theory. Before Kent Hovind introduces his theory he explains it is out on a limb. The Canopy Theory is such a long shot because it attempts to answer why scripturally it did not rain until the Flood, how people lived so much longer, or how many factors of the pre-Flood world were very different from the world we have today. To possibly accept the Canopy Theory one cannot honestly follow the scientific method because it is used as a means to explain the pre-Flood world, which has not been critically examined beyond the creationist community.

18. Slippery Slope: A less eloquent way of logically deducing purpose provided by the renowned VenomX. Understandable argument but does not belong as support for creationism; it is an unsympathetic explanation of human psychology.

19. Correlation Implies Causation: ummm yea, the causation is in his 5th or 6th DVD presentation which does not address creation. Actually as I recall that DVD is titled "The Evil of Evolution", I own a copy, while interesting conspiracy theory and more developed form of the Slippery Slope argument, not effective in arguing for creation, used as a scare tactic against evolution. The variables mentioned are far too broad over far too much time to effectively or scientifically connect the dots.

20. Creative Math: Random is described as an unguided process following no order, correct me if I am wrong but if Natural Selection is an intelligent process wouldn't that be Intelligent Design? The evolutionary version of natural selection is blindfolded; if not then it is an active force of an unknown intelligence. Random mutations are just that, random.

21. Moving The Goalposts: While I know there are many unsatisfied people out there that think they have met the Kent Hovind challenge they are not the ones that made the rules. It is a rather lofty challenge the Kent Hovind setup, but the criterion for attaining the 250k is impossible to reach from his standard. The real issue at hand is that Kent requires evidence that proves evolution to be true in its present form not providing examples and arguments because any argument can be refuted. The Ali G example as his character ought not to be taken seriously and it also falls under the Correlation Implies Causation fallacy.

22. Just Plain Nonsense: When the heading is Ad Hominem in nature it cannot be refuted or rebutted because no argument has been presented. While I disagree with much of Kent Hovind's styles and attitudes the evidence he offers is unparalleled for some of his arguments, such as that dinosaurs are still living on earth today.

23. Outright Lie: If one has studied the curve in the recent 15 years there has been growing dissention with evolution and a growing popularity of ID theory. Calling the change in views an outright lie is more propagandist and suppressionist than any ID theorist I have seen. For a claiming Christian to lie about something they know to be false requires them to be especially evil because the foundations of the belief is founded on Truth and honesty. If one needs to lie to believe in their faith their faith is worthless.

I was almost audibly laughing the way the video ends with "make up your own mind". The video maker clearly did not approach the project with an open mind nor did he attempt to understand the positions or arguments of creationists. This was proven from the first minute of pure attacks upon creationists. The video maker never produced counter arguments or evidence just attempted poor rhetoric to poor examples of creationism. When I started this blog I was expecting some notable figures and arguments, there were two points, one Ken Ham and the other Michael Behe, however, Michael Behe is not a proclaimed creationist he is an ID advocate. This is yet another example of a poor response to creation theory.

Losing Our Minds

            I know more recently I have reflected upon my thoughts about the lacking of intellectualism throughout mainstream Christianity, this might be some closing thoughts for the time being. Much of this reflects the points mentioned in the book I have been lazily reading, and thus have stretched it out far longer than I intended it to. I had to finish the chapters concerning this topic before I spelled it all out.

            I think it is fairly easy to notice that the contemporary style of church is growing in popularity far faster than the traditional style. I am one who prefers a full band, drums and all to be present with the worship leading. In addition to the modernized music the casual attire is another glaring sign, it is not taboo to wear shorts and a t-shirt to church anymore. The concept of "Sunday's best" is all but a concept except in few denominations that I see still exercise such fashion. I'm not one to say whose right or wrong, I think such issues of instruments in the band, attire, and style are preferential. It all matters in what the teaching are; is it a non-biblical self-help session growing our imaginations about a divine genie in the sky? Is it a hell fire and brimstone style that wishes us to scare us into submission? I have seen examples that go both ways too far and to the detriment of the Church (remember church is the organized group, while Church is the body of believers).

            Perhaps the most difficult part about truthfully practicing biblical faith is finding the right balance with all the sinners involved in the process. Sometimes we need to have the kind of zeal that Fred Phelps is so infamous for, except about something that is actually true about God. While other times I think it is best to be meek and humble. How do we reconcile narrow gates with becoming a slave to win them? While it might be theologically true and honest to stand on soap box telling the passersby to repent, does it model a biblical example that Christ showed us? At the same time, just hanging around our secular friends without ever presenting them the Gospel is no better. We must live in such a way that people can see a difference in our life. While at times it is encouraging, I hope my life is bold enough in faith that no one ever has to ask me “what do you believe?”

            So going back to the topic of this conglomeration of thoughts, I have my moments that I pity the old church. The 1600's style of church was liturgical in ways most people can only read about now. The emphasis of the personal God is rather new as far as the practicing of faith goes. Based on the historical analysis that I recently read it was pointed out that such emotion driven faith is a development of the Great Awakenings, the first in the 1730's and the second one in the 1800's, the emotionalism was much more present in the Second Great Awakening. It is common knowledge that it was the pilgrims that started to settle in what is now the United States in the 1600's it is not so common knowledge what kind of faith they practiced upon arrival. The First Great Awakening was especially focused on the hell fire brimstone method of evangelism. This is when such famous works as Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God" were more typical. In contrast, the Second Great Awakening marked the beginning of the revivalist movement.

            It is important to know ones’ roots, those from New England were of the Lutheran, Presbyterian denominations while middle colonies such as Jamestown were closer to the Baptist, Episcopal affiliation. For easier reference I will just go with North vs. South. From the North there was little distinction between the Church and the community. The teachings were that of ordered educated men standing in a pulpit and reading, often it was simply scripture with the occasional personal notes added. The style of preaching that broke down the barriers between the people and the pulpit were some of the signatures of the Great Awakenings. While I treasure such adaptations in the way the Gospel is preached and taught I recently pondered, "When did we pull away from intellectualism?" Remember that Yale, Princeton and many of the Ivy League schools started out to train ministers. If you doubt me, schools having such mottos as "In Thy light shall we see the light", "Laws without morals are useless" or "Truth" seems to point to their roots and original purpose. How did these institutions of intellect and faith get so far from the faith that drove their founding?

            The Second Great Awakening originated in the South; whereas preachers would live much like the disciples going place to place preaching to whomever would hear them. While such introduction of introducing faith as a heart issue greatly popularized faith it started a differentiation between our thought lives. The faith practiced prior to the Great Awakenings was strongly linked with the intellectual fields of science. Be it Galileo, Mendeleyev, or Newton they were all devoted and often driven in their scientific study by their Christian faith. There was no diversion between faith and science, much of early science was established by the church. Nancy Pearcy phrases such mental division as the “upper story”; being topics of science, politics, what we mostly call facts verses the lower story; which is our relationships, faith and philosophy. So what happened?

            It appears to me somewhat of a throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater occurred, during the Second Great Awakening. While the Gospel was popularized and swept the nation it was emphasized on the personal level of faith verses the Northern style which is exemplified in such works as The Scarlet Letter. That's when people caught in sin would be publicly chastised, punished, and or worse. The sense of loving one another was embodied as tough love if love at all. I am grateful that faith is taught as something that is of the heart, but strongly dissatisfied with the common limits of faith from being more than feelings and emotions. I was wondering what happened in our culture that we got so far from our critical thinking and common sense, and I am looking right into our own history as a Christian nation. During the Second Great Awakening and for decades following, the emphasis towards theology, reason and philosophy was ignored or discarded. In an effort to get away from the judgmental liturgical method of worship and become relevant to the masses the message was simplified and in some ways watered down.

            In my own desire to point fingers to who watered down our faith that it is so difficult for so many to know how to think critically and faithfully I have found the finger pointing at ourselves. It seems the cost of focusing so intently on the faith of Christianity; the Truth of Christianity has been blurred. We live in a society that claims to be 90% Christian, and yet looking at our social issues they seem to be problems that plague a worldly culture not one focused on Christ. I mentioned this in Born Again or Christian, but it is worth returning to.

            Where does that leave us now? The anti-Christian sentiment fueled by “rationality has been growing, from the Blasphemy Challenge of the Rational Responders or any number of the proud atheist movement. They stand on their soap boxes with pride claiming as Nietzsche did "God is dead" and there are few Christians that can engage them in the spiritual warfare they are bringing in us. I wonder where are all the Daniels, Hananiahs, Mishaels, and Azariahs? They mastered the Babylonian way of life, knowledge and culture yet did not become subjects of it. They remained faithful in their life while relevant and eternally effective as ministers and apologetics. I hope I can do the same and recruit some others to join me.