Children in foster care had, by far, the worst outcomes. Those raised by one biological family member and those living with relatives fell between those with two biological parents and no biological parents. Adopted children were not included in the sample.
The study looked at nine adverse experiences: 1) divorce or separation of parents or guardians, 2) death of a parent or guardian, 3) incarceration of a parent or guardian, 4) lived with someone who was mentally ill, suicidal or severely depressed, 5) lived with someone who had an alcohol or drug problem, 6) witnessed violence in the household, 7) was the victim of violence or witnessed violence in the neighborhood, 8) suffered racial discrimination, and 9) caregiver had often found it hard to get by on the family’s income.
Seventy percent of children raised by their biological mother and father had no adverse family experiences compared to only 21.7 percent of those raised by one biological parent and 18.7 percent of those raised by no biological parents.
[…]The data comes from the 2011-2012 National Survey of Children’s Health, a nationally representative phone survey of households with children. 95,677 interviews were conducted for the survey.
There seems to be a conflict in our society now between the traditionalists, who favor chastity, courtship and natural marriage, and the “anything goes” secular relativists. The secular relativists seem to be winning, but at what cost? The data seems to be pretty clear – when you lift moral restrictions on the sexual behaviors of adults, then children suffer. We should be more articulate in saying how children are affected whenever these discussions come up.
The Dolphins swiftly and publicly reprimanded Don Jones late Sunday for his Twitter remarks critical of Michael Sam, fining him and barring him from team activities until he undergoes sensitivity training.
In a statement released by the team, Jones apologized for tweeting “omg” and “horrible” after seeing Sam sharing a celebratory kiss with his partner on national TV Saturday evening. Sam had just been drafted by the St. Louis Rams in the seventh round, becoming the first openly gay player selected by an NFL team.
[…]Although the Dolphins did not disclose the amount of the fine, the fact that they made the punishment public was significant. Dolphins coach Joe Philbin rarely discusses internal discipline with reporters but made it a point to condemn Jones’ words on official team letterhead Sunday night.“We were disappointed to read Don’s tweets during the NFL Draft,” Philbin said. “They were inappropriate and unacceptable, and we regret the negative impact these comments had on such an important weekend for the NFL. We met with Don [Sunday] about respect, discrimination and judgment. These comments are not consistent with the values and standards of our program. We will continue to emphasize and educate our players that these statements will not be tolerated.”
So, if you are Tim Tebow, everyone can insult you and make fun of you for being a Christian and for being chaste before marriage. But if you’re gay, then no one can even disagree with you on sexual issues.
This is why I have an alias. I am very conscious of the fact that the way I earn a living is something that the other side would love to take away from me. If anyone who did not tolerate my statements on certain controversial issues ever found out who I was or where I worked, I’d be out of a job. I am happy to say what I think about controversial issues, (not with tweets, but by citing studies), while I can still do it. But I have no doubt that the secular left will one day make it their business to find out who disagrees with them on matters like sexual ethics, and make sure we are properly corrected about our bad ideas. They seem to have tremendous difficulty letting other people have different views than they do, and not punishing them for those different views. “These statements will not be tolerated” the coach says.
Apologetics 315 posted the video of a debate from the Reasonable Faith speaking tour in the UK:
This is a must-see debate. It was extremely fun to watch.
Details:
On Wednesday 26th October 2011 William Lane Craig debated Peter Atkins on the topic: Does God Exist? This debate took place at the University of Manchester as part of the UK Reasonable Faith Tour with William Lane Craig. The debate was chaired by Christopher Whitehead, Head of Chemistry School at the University. Post-debate discussion was moderated by Peter S Williams, Philosopher in Residence at the Damaris Trust, UK.
Dr. William Lane Craig:
William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher, philosophical theologian, and Christian apologist. He is known for his work on the philosophy of time and the philosophy of religion, specifically the existence of God and the defense of Christian theism. He has authored or edited over 30 books including The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology(co-authored with Quentin Smith, 1993), Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (2001), and Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (co-edited with Quentin Smith, 2007).
Craig received a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications from Wheaton College, Illinois, in 1971 and two summa cum laudemaster’s degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and ecclesiastical history. He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England in 1977 and a Th.D. underWolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984.
Dr. Peter Atkins:
Peter William Atkins (born 10 August 1940) is a British chemist and former Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Lincoln College. He is a prolific writer of popular chemistry textbooks, including Physical Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, and Molecular Quantum Mechanics. Atkins is also the author of a number of science books for the general public, including Atkins’ Molecules and Galileo’s Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science.
Atkins studied chemistry at the University of Leicester, obtaining a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, and – in 1964 – a PhD for research into electron spin resonance spectroscopy, and other aspects of theoretical chemistry. Atkins then took a postdoctoral position at the UCLA as aHarkness Fellow of the Commonwealth fund. He returned to Oxford in 1965 as fellow and tutor of Lincoln College, and lecturer in physical chemistry (later, professor of physical chemistry).
You can get the audio of the debate here, along with links to their previous debate from 1998. This debate is accessible and understandable to novice-level Christians.
I am happy when debates like this come out. I have friends who are Christians who doubt the importance of apologetics in evangelism, because they don’t think that apologists can prove anything or win arguments. I have friends who are skeptical of using arguments that assume a 14-billion year old universe, because they think that the Big Bang is compatible with atheism (!). I have friends who think that philosophical arguments have no persuasive force. I have friends who think that nothing can be proven from history, beyond a reasonable doubt. I have co-workers who ask me whether anyone wins these debates. I think that this debate answers all of those questions.
This debate clearly shows why Christians should not shy away from studying science, philosophy and history. We will not discover anything that harms Christian theism by thinking logically and by looking at the evidence. To the contrary, it is the atheist who makes war on the progress of science, and who is forced to resist the clear experimental evidence, and to resort to baseless speculations and blind faith. If you want to see a good debate with an intelligent atheist, I recommend watching the debate between William Lane Craig and Peter Millican instead. But if you want to see a really, really overwhelming defeat for atheism, watch this debate. It is very clear at the end of this debate why Richard Dawkins refused to debate William Lane Craig at Oxford.
SUMMARY OF THE OPENING SPEECHES
I only had time to summarize the first two speeches. Keep in mind that Dr. Craig always shines in his rebuttals, and this debate is no different. So you’ll want to watch those rebuttals. Dr. Atkins literally says in this debate in his first rebuttal “There was nothing here originally. There is nothing here now. But it is an interesting form of nothing which seems to be something.” And the audience laughs nervously. This debate is like that. You will see a clear winner and clear loser in this debate. This fight is decided by knockout.
William Lane Craig opening speech:
1. the origin of the universe
2. the moral argument
3. the resurrection of Jesus
Peter Atkins opening speech:
1. Dr. Craig is stupid, lazy and evil:
– Dr. Craig’s arguments are old: from the 11th century! Old arguments can’t be true
– Dr. Craig is just asserting that “God did it” because he is lazy
– Dr. Craig feels pressured to agree with the theistic majority
– Dr. Craig needs a psychological crutch to comfort him
– Dr. Craig is fearful of death
– Dr. Craig is just wishing for an eternal life of bliss
– Dr. Craig is driven by his heart, and not by his head
2. Origin of the universe:
– Maybe the universe is eternal and has no beginning – we don’t know
– Maybe mommy universes can give birth to daughter universes
– It is naive to think that a cause is needed to cause the creation of the universe from nothing
– Science is just about to show how it is possible that something appears out of nothing without cause
– Some scientists have already begun to speculate about about how something can come into being out of nothing
– Maybe nothing is not really nothing, but it is actually something
– It would be admitting defeat to say that God created the universe out of nothing
3. Fine-Tuning:
– It could be the case that the fundamental constants are not variable
– It could be the case that the fine-tuning of the cosmic constants is a happy accident
– It could be the case that there are billions of billions of unobservable universes that are not fine tuned
– It could be the case that the cosmic constants in these billions and billions of unobservable universes are all random so that some are fine-tuned
– Anyone who infers that an intelligence is the best explanation of a finely-tuned set of life-permitting cosmic constants is lazy
4. Purpose:
– Philosophers and theologians are stupid
– I don’t think that there is purpose in the universe
– I think that the universe is more grand if there is no purpose, so there is no purpose
5. Miracles:
– I don’t think that miracles happen
– The resurrection is a fabrication
– It could be the case that Jesus didn’t exist
– It could be the case that Jesus wasn’t really crucified
– It could be the case that Jesus didn’t really die after being crucified
– It could be the case that the disciples stole his body
– It could be the case that the women went to the wrong hole in the ground
– the gospels are political propaganda written long after the events they are reporting on
6. Theodicy:
– God has no morally sufficient reason for allowing humans to perform actions that result in suffering
– God has no morally sufficient reason for allowing nature to cause suffering
7. Morality:
– customs and conventions emerges arbitrarily in different times and places based on an awareness of the consequences of actions, as well as various anecdotes and experiences
– these customs and conventions are decided based on the goal for survival, in much the same way as politeness and manners emerge for decorum and to avoid offense
– it is childish to presume that there is an umpire God who decides moral values and duties
8. Religious believers are stupid, lazy and evil:
– the notion of God has arisen because people are stupid and want to be comforted
– there are no arguments or evidences for belief in God
– people who believe in God do not think, but instead take refuge in incomprehensible nonsense
WINTERY KNIGHT 