Commentary

How do we stop the mass exodus of men from the church?

Leave a comment

Pastor Kreitsauce wrote a post a while back discussing the exodus of men from the church.

Here are the numbers fro the web site Church for Men:

  • American churches on average display an incredible gender gap- 69% women and 31% men. That translates to about 13 million more women attending than men.
  • 1 in 4 “churched” women will attend the Sunday service without their husbands, while 80% of attendees at the midweek services are women.
  • Over 70% of boys raised in church will drop out by the end of their college years.
  • At Christian colleges, the ratio of female to male students is 2 to 1.

Kreitsauce writes:

Men seem to enjoy theology, philosophy, politics, ethics, and science more than women do. They love debate, contest, competition, adventure, challenges, danger, risk, and achievement in a unique way. It isn’t that these are “men’s areas”, but there is something different in how men are wired that gives them an affinity for these things. As John Eldridge’s book Wild at Heart observes, our self-worth is intimately connected to these things. Men don’t feel complete unless they are accomplishing, building, and standing on something larger than themselves. As Christian comedian Jeff Allen has said, men need something worth dying for to make them truly come to life.

So what’s a church to do?

Click through and read his solutions. I agree with his solution, and this is what I do in my own life!

Podcasts

Stephen C. Meyer podcasts on intelligently designed DNA

1 Comment

Stephen C. Meyer podcasts on intelligently designed DNA

The Making of an ID Theorist: Stephen C. Meyer and the Origin of Life

This episode of ID the Future tells the story of how philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer first began his quest for the origin of life. How did one of the architects of the intelligent design movement move from the oilfields of Texas to the study halls of Cambridge to pursue the mystery of where biological information originated? Listen in and find out. (MP3 file)

Delving Into Science at Cambridge: Stephen C. Meyer and Signature in the Cell

On this episode of ID the Future philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer continues the story of how he became involved in intelligent design, sharing some of what he studied while at Cambridge University. What methods do scientists use to study biological origins? Is there a distinctive method of historical scientific inquiry? Meyer set off to investigate not only the history of scientific ideas about the origin of life, but also questions about the definition of science and about how scientists study and reason about ancient events in the past. Listen in and learn, and check out Dr. Meyer’s new book, Signature in the Cell, which tells more of the story, the culmination of over 20 years of study and research on the origins of life. (MP3 file)

DNA Evidence for Design: Stephen C. Meyer and Signature in the Cell

On this episode of ID the Future CSC Director Stephen C. Meyer explains the problem that information presents to origin of life researchers within a naturalistic paradigm. Information within the cell presents a daunting challenge to Darwin’s theory — and provides significant evidence for a signature of a designing intelligence, as Meyer explains in his new book. (MP3 file)

The Design Argument Is Unrefuted: Stephen Meyer Responds to Critics With Signature in the Cell

On this episode of ID the Future philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer responds to critics of intelligent design, such as Richard Dawkins and his book, The God Delusion. (MP3 file)

BONUS

Hear Stephen C. Meyer on the popular, nationally-syndicated Michael Medved show. (H/T Discovery Institute)

News

The Democrats make war on science to protect their faith-based policies

Leave a comment

Did everyone hear about how the EPA, (a government agency), suppressed a report questioning global warming? Basically, the Democrats wanted to pass the cap-and-trade bill without facing any criticism of their faith in man-made global warming. So they told Carlin not to publish his report or speak about it to anyone. Alan Carlin went ahead and released the report to CEI anyway. And now he tells the whole story in the WSJ.

In the Wall Street Journal. (H/T CEI)

Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. “We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA,” the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from “any direct communication” with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: “The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” (Emphasis added.)

Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: “With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.” Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.

The emails were unearthed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Republican officials are calling for an investigation; House Energy Committee ranking member Joe Barton sent a letter with pointed questions to Mrs. Jackson, which she’s yet to answer. The EPA has issued defensive statements, claiming Mr. Carlin wasn’t ignored. But there is no getting around that the Obama administration has flouted its own promises of transparency.

In case you missed it, CEI wrote a lot more about the Democrats’ war on science here and here.

I blogged previously about how the Democrats undermine science in the university with their affirmative action policies, and how they insist on spending money on unproven ESCR, when ASCR has all the proven cures.