Weak Argument for Abstinence

Texas governor Rick Perry was recently interviewed by the Texas Tribune (3:00 video), and he was asked about the value of abstinence-only sex education.  The interviewer said that Texas has the third-highest teen pregnancy rate in the country.
Perry’s response: “Abstinence works.”
Let’s make a distinction between abstinence (that is, actually abstaining from sex) and abstinence as a policy.  Perry is right, of course, that “abstinence works” in the first case.  It works by definition.  But the question is: Is teaching schoolchildren that abstinence is the way to prevent pregnancy the best approach?  Does it lead to the fewest unwanted pregnancies?
The punch line is that Perry cited steroid testing within schools as something that yielded very poor results.  The interviewer asked if Perry is saying that that was a poor expenditure of money.  Nope—“If that’s a good expenditure, then I would suggest to you that the dollars we’re spending on abstinence education is a good expenditure.”  Huh?  The question is whether or not there’s something better.
Moving on to the larger abortion debate, it’s hard for me to understand someone saying that abortion is murder and then not demanding the most effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  If you really, really hate abortion, then teach teens in a way that minimizes the unwanted pregnancies.
The graphic above shows abortion rates by country, with dark being worse.  Compare the dark United States with lighter Europe.  For example, the teen abortion rate in the US is 30 per 1000, but in the Netherlands, it’s less than 4!
Looks like there’s room for improvement.
Photo credit: Wikipedia

John Lennox Responds to Stephen Hawking

John LennoxDr. John Lennox, a math professor at the University of Oxford, visited Seattle recently to respond to Stephen Hawking’s recent The Grand Design (co-written with Leonard Mlodinow).  I’ll give a brief summary of the main points Lennox made with a few comments.
In his book, Hawking says:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

Christian apologists like to focus on the beginning of the universe, sensing a weakness in the naturalistic model. When asked about what came before the Big Bang, Science simply says, “I don’t know.” This is neither a weakness nor a reason for embarrassment. Instead, it points to those areas in science where more work needs to be done. But this statement by Hawking gives at least one resolution to the question.
Lennox spent much of the lecture criticizing this one claim.  Continue reading

Caltrop Argument

CaltropA caltrop is a small object with four sharp spikes arranged such that however it lands on the ground, three spikes are down and one is pointing up.  Ninjas are said to have tossed these on the ground as they ran away to stop barefoot pursuers.
A caltrop argument is a defensive argument that attempts to avoid an argument rather than respond to it honestly.
My favorite caltrop argument goes something like this:

Atheist: There is no absolute truth beyond trivial statements like 1 + 1 = 2.
Christian: Well, that certainly sounded like an absolute truth statement!  Aha—you’ve defeated yourself!
Atheist: [sigh]  Fine.  What I should have said was “I have never seen evidence of such absolute truth statements.”

The atheist in this exchange made a mistake.  But instead of interpreting the statement charitably and finding the valid point wrapped in an imperfect presentation, the Christian tried to use the mistake to avoid the point completely.
Of course, I’m not saying that only one group is guilty of this.  Atheists can toss out caltrops to avoid confronting an argument as well.  But the person interested in the truth confronts an argument directly.
Related posts: