Following the Science Beyond Roe

Posted: May 13, 2022 by pastorericrhann in Pro-life, Social Issues
Tags: , , ,

This is the type of post I’ve written on here that has resulted in me getting banned from FACEBOOK (yes, I not only cannot link this blog to Facebook in a public post, but I can’t even respond to church friends asking questions in private messages by linking to this blog. I’m continually stunted by “doesn’t meet community standards” or having my blog categorized as “spam.” At the same time, I’ve tested linking controversial articles such as – “An Atheist Support for Abortion” from WORDPRESS, and Facebook allows me to link to those).

That said, the below paragraph is a bite from an excellent article by our friends at MINISTRY WATCH. Aside from a careful rebuttal of the misnomer that all pro-lifers care about are babies in the womb (and nobody else), the challenge is also made to those who regularly camp on the phrase “follow the science” to do just that – and specifically in the context of the pro-life position. I once had the opportunity to address representatives at our own county’s City Hall with this same line of argumentation. As modern day Christians, we’ve grown more than a little weary of hearing about how religious leaders centuries ago refused to look through Galileo’s telescope (even though Galileo was a devout Christian believer, and there were scientists on both sides of the issue), when countless secularists today, right now, are unwilling to take a studied look at an ultrasound and/or encourage others to do the same.

Progressives often use phrases such as ‘follow the science’ to demean those who disagree with them, and to suggest that their position is the only rational position in any public policy debate.  However, if Americans ‘follow the science’ related to abortion, they would learn that, according to Dr. Tara Sander Lee, senior fellow and director of life sciences at Charlotte Lozier Institute, that: ‘Major scientific advancements have revolutionized ultrasound technology, fetal diagnosis, and the science of fetal pain.  Doctors are now treating babies in utero before birth. There have also been miraculous advancements in our ability to care for extremely premature babies, and all of this has occurred since Roe.’

Increasingly, it becomes clear it’s not science many people are interested in, but instead selective science.

Here is the article in its entirety.

Encourage someone today to follow the science beyond Roe.


Over 600 people registered so far for our upcoming, one night Worldview conference (with apologetics) featuring Drs. Sean McDowell and J.P. Moreland. The core topics will be “Thinking Biblically about Cancel Culture and Scientism.” If you live in the Central California area, plan on joining us Sunday Night May 22 at Valley Baptist Church, Bakersfield (4800 Fruitvale Ave 93308). Only $10 per person, and if you register soon it includes food and even childcare! Go here to register and for more details.

I will see you there! -Pastor E

One need not be a genius to figure it out – you need not even be an avid bookworm. Just read … some … books. Like Darwin’s Descent of Man. “But, those racist statements aren’t in there! You made that up!” Read the photo shots for yourself in my previous blog article found right here.

So now we have a University of Sheffield article from The College Fix, a teaching and research handbook, reporting that the renowned theory of natural selection justified the view that the white race was superior to others, and used his (Darwin’s) theory of sexual selection to justify why women were clearly inferior to men.”

People who have read some books have known this seemingly forever. It’s truly good to see that elitists of higher education are now reading some books. Not everyone agrees, though. There is much backlash. Seemingly, there remains a large population of people who still haven’t read some books. Those who have read some books will watch as Darwinian fundamentalists squirm and blurt out things like: “He wasn’t, I don’t believe it, and that settles it!”

For anyone else – here’s an excellent write – up on the subject.

Have a happy belief system.



Wow. Just … wow. Keep in mind there are still places online, right now, where by saying this you will get flagged as “FALSE” by “Fact-Checkers.” Below is an excerpt from the statements in this BLAZE article regarding the current CEO of Planned Parenthood owning up to Margaret Sanger, their founder, being unequivocally both a racist and a eugenicist.


“Planned Parenthood had for decades defended Sanger as a champion of women’s rights and reproductive health, until last year when 350 current and former staffers of Planned Parenthood’s Greater New York affiliate published an open letter condemning Sanger as “a racist, white woman” and accusing the organization of ‘institutional racism.'”

After public criticism, last July Planned Parenthood of Greater New York removed Sanger’s name from its Manhattan clinic for her ‘harmful connections to the eugenics movement.’

Now, McGill Johnson is the first Planned Parenthood CEO to publicly acknowledge Sanger’s evil beliefs. She wrote:

‘Sanger spoke to the women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan at a rally in New Jersey to generate support for birth control. And event though she eventually distanced herself from the eugenics movement because of its hard turn to explicit racism, she endorsed the Supreme Court’s 1927 decision in Buck v. Bell, which allowed states to sterilize people deemed “unfit” without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge — a ruling that led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of people in the 20th century.'”


The article in its entirety can be found right here.

An important next step is to include Sanger as being an atheist-Darwinist, and the influence of this as an intrinsically, racist worldview.

I’ve been a Christ-follower since 1972. I’ve been involved in church ministry, either volunteer or paid staff, since 1984. If I were to revisit every time the expert statisticians have made bold, dire predictions about the imminent funeral of Christianity (even specifically regarding Christian churches), I’d be here for awhile and you’d have difficulty finding time to read this article. I’d say from general memory this chicken little pronouncement has been made, formally, during my Christian pilgrimage about 15 different times. So now, our friends at Gallup have given us the most recent church-pocalypse announcement (#16?) and our even better friends at the L.A. Times have printed this article to throw gasoline on it in a manner fitting with plentiful, confirmation bias.

At some juncture, I may address the string of egregious non-sequiturs in this article, but for now folks might find it interesting to know that statisticians and pollsters are not in complete agreement on this subject (I know after this last year (’20-’21), one might be completely befuddled to discover pollsters are not always correct, but try as much as possible to process this factoid). Yes, for now, here are just two books, which are very well-researched/documented, that bear quite different news flashes about the state of Christianity and specifically Christian church attendance. One is from 2010 “Christians are Hate-Filled Hypocrites … and Other Lies You’ve Been Told” by Bradley Wright. Among countless subjects, Wright has the audacity to traverse back long before my own observations on this, and log numerous historical moments in America’s past when the Chicken-Littles were delivering fiery eulogies regarding Bible believing Christianity:

On top of these perspective grabbers, Wright points out countless modern day predictions which have been made. Here’s one of my favorites made in 2008:

A nice point can be made on this – even if Gallup’s current data is correct, we obliterated David Olson’s falling sky pronouncement. But is Gallup even correct? PEW doesn’t think so. Here’s a bite from Glenn Stanton’s book “The Myth of the Dying Church” from … 2019:

If you’re now thinking – that’s some crazy info right there. You might consider chewing on these points representing Stanton’s overall conclusions in this well-documented book:

But wait Chicken Little. How can this be? “Experts” in their field coming to different conclusions? Who has ever heard of such a thing? What can we do? Here’s Stanton’s general recommendation:

Crazy. What sort of insanity is this man promulgating? I know it’s difficult to fathom that news can vary – depending on the source. Well, here are a couple of sources (called books) to take into consideration on the subject at hand. I know many will not want to delve into this archaic discipline (reading), primarily because it’s just so fun to go knee-jerk with bold pronouncements. You might even get published in the L.A. Times! Yeah, sorry. I know – I can sympathize. Facts often spoil fun. -e

I recently was asked to do a tutorial for our church website on a conversational approach to being a witness for Christ. Included in this filming session was this PART 2 “How to Handle Objections” which includes 2 questions I’ve found helpful to get people thinking about their belief system as compared to the truth claims of Christianity. You might find this helpful in your own conversations. Although filling in the details after these 2 questions might be a little too technical and wordy for some to process, one should still be able to utilize just the questions, themselves, and whatever else can be absorbed from the rest. You might even be someone who is working through your own beliefs, doubts, etc, and this might be something helpful to you personally along these lines.

Here is the link. Scroll down to the “How to Share Your Faith” (“Part 2: How to Handle Objections”)

To go deeper in dealing with further doubts or objections, go to the left side-bar on this blog to the subjects “The ‘IS’ Articles” and “Asking Other Questions” – and follow the links to various sources. Happy viewing and reading!

-pastor e

Big Tech is my Shepherd, I shall not think.

It maketh me to bow down to popular opinions:
It bleedeth me inside the cyber ecosystems.
It stealeth my soul:
It conformeth me in the paths of community standards
For correctness sake.

Yea though I scroll through algorithms of incoherent Critical Theory
I will challenge no blatant contradictions
For thou art deleting me;
Thy flags and thy banners they check me
Thou preparest a search before me in the presence of my keyboard:
Thou fillest my head with junk;
My notifications runneth over

Surely behavior monitoring for social credit shall follow me
All the days of my life: And I will dwell in an Orwellian nightmare until my time, plus matter, plus chance, materialist existence disintegrates into
the final nothingness

-e (Nov. 2020)

When Harriet Met Peter

Posted: December 8, 2020 by pastorericrhann in Uncategorized

Dr. Peter Singer (1946 – ; Bioethics Professor at Princeton University) Holds that parents should legally be allowed to let their disabled babies die (legalized infanticide)

Harriet McBryde Johnson (1957-2008): Lived her entire life as a disabled person (someone Singer thinks should have been allowed to die).

What happened in 2003 when these two met? You can read the entire New York Times account by going right here. I sectioned out some points of interest with accompanying comments below. A couple of quick takeaways: 1) Although she personally opposes Singer’s views, as a professing atheist (with an accompanying worldview) Harriet struggles to find the logical support of her position without deferring to pragmatism and subjectivism. 2) Although his views are opposed by many, Singer reveals himself at a personal level to be very… human.

“It is an interesting exchange. In the lecture hall that afternoon, Singer lays it all out. The ‘illogic’ of allowing abortion but not infanticide, of allowing withdrawal of life support but not active killing. Applying the basic assumptions of preference utilitarianism, he spins out his bone-chilling argument for letting parents kill disabled babies and replace them with nondisabled babies who have a greater chance at happiness. It is all about allowing as many individuals as possible to fulfill as many of their preferences as possible”

Note: Clearly, Singer’s views are based on his a priori, philosophical assumptions. If pressed further on this, one would find out it stems from deeper ideas, including his social-Darwinian atheism. Harriet continues as she describes her conversation with her sister:

“I am talking to my sister Beth on the phone. (Beth) ‘You kind of like the monster, don’t you?’ she says. (Harriet) I find myself unable to evade, certainly unwilling to lie. ‘Yeah, in a way. And he’s not exactly a monster.’ (Beth) ‘You know, Harriet, there were some very pleasant Nazis. They say the SS guards went home and played on the floor with their children every night.’ (Harriet) She can tell that I’m chastened; she changes the topic, lets me off the hook. Her harshness has come as a surprise. She isn’t inclined to moralizing; in our family, I’m the one who sets people straight. When I put the phone down, my argumentative nature feels frustrated. In my mind, I replay the conversation, but this time defend my position. (Harriet) ‘He’s not exactly a monster. He just has some strange ways of looking at things.’ (Beth) He’s advocating genocide.(Harriet) That’s the thing. In his mind, he isn’t. He’s only giving parents a choice. He thinks the humans he is talking about aren’t people, aren’t ‘persons.’ (Beth) ‘But that’s the way it always works, isn’t it? They’re always animals or vermin or chattel goods. Objects, not persons. He’s repackaging some old ideas. Making them acceptable.’ (Harriet) ‘I think his ideas are new, in a way. It’s not old-fashioned hate. It’s a twisted, misinformed, warped kind of beneficence. His motive is to do good.’ (Beth) ‘What do you care about motives?’ she asks. ‘Doesn’t this beneficent killing make disabled brothers and sisters just as dead?” (Harriet) ‘But he isn’t killing anyone. It’s just talk.’ (Beth) ‘Just talk? It’s talk with an agenda, talk aimed at forming policy. Talk that’s getting a receptive audience. You of all people know the power of that kind of talk.’ (Harriet) ‘Well, sure, but–‘ (Beth) ‘If talk didn’t matter, would you make it your life’s work?’ (Harriet) ‘But,’ I say, ‘his talk won’t matter in the end. He won’t succeed in reinventing morality. He stirs the pot, brings things out into the open. But ultimately we’ll make a world that’s fit to live in, a society that has room for all its flawed creatures. History will remember Singer as a curious example of the bizarre things that can happen when paradigms collide.’ (Beth)What if you’re wrong? What if he convinces people that there’s no morally significant difference between a fetus and a newborn, and just as disabled fetuses are routinely aborted now, so disabled babies are routinely killed?

Note: Harriet’s assumption this is “just talk” has already been proved wrong. Go right here for more on that subject. Ideas have consequences. Keep in mind Mein Kompf was written by someone who certainly wasn’t a respected ethics professor at an Ivy League school. He was a political radical doing time in a prison in Landsberg. Harriet continues to reason:

“If I define Singer’s kind of disability prejudice as an ultimate evil, and him as a monster, then I must so define all who believe disabled lives are inherently worse off or that a life without a certain kind of consciousness lacks value. That definition would make monsters of many of the people with whom I move on the sidewalks, do business, break bread, swap stories and share the grunt work of local politics. It would reach some of my family and most of my nondisabled friends, people who show me personal kindness and who sometimes manage to love me through their ignorance. I can’t live with a definition of ultimate evil that encompasses all of them

Note: Harriet, as a professing atheist, is to be commended for following the logic – but then philosophically resists the conclusion for pragmatic reasons based on an a priori “all those people can’t be bad” worldview. In contrast (as Christians), we see the logic she follows and we’re also receptive to where it leads as fitting exactly into our Biblical worldview (see Romans 3:9-19). In short, “all” we like sheep means… all. It’s called human depravity. It’s why we need a Savior. The name Jesus means “Savior.” Neither Hitler nor Singer are alone in these steps taken regarding this condition. For a brief history of human sin, see Clay Jones lecture on the “History of Human Sin.”

“As a shield from the terrible purity of Singer’s vision, I’ll look to the corruption that comes from interconnectedness. To justify my hopes that Singer’s theoretical world — and its entirely logical extensions — won’t become real, I’ll invoke the muck and mess and undeniable reality of disabled lives well lived. That’s the best I can do.”

Note: In all love and respect for Harriet, it’s not “the best” she or any of us “can do.” Obviously, defining which lives can be deemed as “well-lived” in contrast with others is highly subjective (which is why the Singers of the world continue to have a voice). Objectively speaking, humans have intrinsic worth that transcends the various forms of utilitarianism and mere subjective experience. We (including Harriet!) are created in the image of God and have unique value worthy of the right to life (Genesis 1:27). -e

The issue is commonly raised in our culture as to why most evangelical Christians align themselves politically as conservatives. Since meanings of terms are so often either not understood or sometimes intentionally misrepresented (as strawmen) by various opposing viewpoints, Dr. Moreland takes on the task here of clarifying various principles undergirding this timely subject. I once had the opportunity to help organize an event at our church in which J.P. was one of the guest speakers. I can think of no better source for a thoughtful, thorough, yet clear presentation on this. Notice, as stated in the below segment, that his goal in writing this essay is not persuasion – but merely clarification:

As Jonathan Haidt has demonstrated, over 90% of American college campuses are so one-sided in their faculty and staffs’ commitment to secular leftism, that they may rightly be accused of group-think, indoctrination of students, and ignorance of opposing points of view. Nowhere is this more evident than in the ubiquitous strawmen presented as accurate representations of traditional, especially evangelical, Christian reasons for adopting a conservative ethical and political view of the state, along with advocacy of limited government. The purpose of this chapter is to correct this situation. I recognize that many who read this chapter are not Christians, and my purpose is not to persuade the reader that the conservative evangelical view is true or rational. Rather, my goal is more limited. I want to help the reader understand why Evangelicals adopt this view. Clarification, not persuasion, is my goal.

Also of note, Dr. Moreland takes time in the article to compare Evangelical understandings of these subjects to those within Catholicism – noting the ways the various principles and applications can often overlap.

Be blessed in furthering your clarity and understanding by going right here! -e

The Brave New World of Women’s Sports

Posted: November 25, 2020 by pastorericrhann in Social Issues
Tags: , ,

It’s no secret the transgender movement is being progressively embraced by our culture. As it has, people are beginning to notice the many subsequent, unintended consequences. Here’s one simple way to position what’s happening:

  • A rejection of the categories of binary genders (Men / Women) includes…
  • The rejection of the distinct category of Women, which is…
  • The rejection of all special categories exclusively designed for Women.

Just one specific example is Women’s sports.

Enter Selina Soule.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is selina-soule.jpg

Selina was one of the top five female high school sprinters in the state of Connecticut. At least she was – until two biological boys entered the track competition as transgender girls. As it turned out, these two biological males went on to win 15 state women’s titles – obliterating many records, achievements, efforts and dreams of numerous female athletes (past and present). While their times wouldn’t even qualify them for state level competition in the men’s track category, in women’s track they dominated. Ms. Soule describes it this way in her own words:

“Maybe worst of all: When girls try to object—when we point out the truth that biological differences in strength and speed between boys and girls are massive and real—we’re called bigots. Administrators, teachers, coaches, and other students tell us to just keep quiet and take it. We’re told a girl’s place is to be seen and not heard.”

Let these last sentences resonate with you – being told to “keep quiet, and take it,” that’s your “place.” Somehow, in the name of openness and freedom, women are back to subjugation – and biological men have renewed license to dominate.

So much for women’s sports.

For that matter, so much for women’s rights.

You can hear Selina her tell her story herself by by going right here.

The good news is research is revealing the majority of people are not supportive of this the new frontier of games (and I use the word both literally and figuratively). Still, one might ask how far and for how long this season of experimentation will run?

Who will speak up for … women?