Hello John and DovesI was listening to a program several days ago where the panelists and various intelligentsia were discussing the issue of abortion, pro & con. Myself, I'm adamantly pro-life.
One "point" that kept comming up on the pro-life side was the concept that "life begins at conception". On the surface this innocent sounding phrase is actually incorrect! In my time BC (Before Jesus), I taught Biology, Bio-Chem, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Engineering on the under gtad and grad levels. I do not publish this as any sort of boast for I know with certainty it is as detritus compared to the salvation and knowledge of Yeshua. I stated it because in the teaching of Biology, the definition of 'what constitutes life' is very much a topic. In this area I can unequivocally state that LIFE BEGINS BEFORE FERTILIZATION"! A dead sperm and/or ovua combination will NOT yield life. A normal, healthy, undeformed sperm and/or egg qualify as being alive prior to their union. Both "seeds" respire, metabolize, have cell membranes etc;.i.e. they are alive. With the Blessing of the Most High, life begets life,,, abiogenesis is quite impossible. We must not let our facts, logic of pro-life apologetics and the hermeneutics of the vocabulary, background and content of the issue of life be altered by those who are "pro-choice". A Bible search of the words "womb", "Child/children" and "knit" yield many interesting verses regarding conception and life.
One other item worth mentioning in the evolution vs creationism/intelligent design/anthropic principle debate is the idea as to what qualifies as true science. In the early days of the age of scientific enlightenment, true science held as "a priori" or as an axiom that scientific results MUST BE REPEATABLE OR REPRODUCIBLE. The requirement for "reproducible results" was foundational if shamans and tricksters were to be kept out. In the intervening year, disciplines such as the "Social Sciences", "Political Science", "Police Science" etc, co-opted the word "science" to affoird their crafts an air of respectability. Granted, some of these fields do use science facts and methods in their application. But mere incorporation of several aspects of a scientific method does not make the entire subject one of a science. True science requires that the recipies, prescriptions, laws and methods used to obtain specific, detailed results, say in North America, will yield the exact same results when the aforementioned are applied in say New Zealand.
Since evolution cannot be reproduced, then by definition, by default it does not qualify as science and should not be advertised as such. In fact the recent exposition of the 3 billion plus codon sequencing of thehuman genome has the evolutionists "hiding under their desks". To explain the 120,000 human traits (such as eye color, hair texture, and the myriad of body protiens by using only the 30,000 active gene sites on the human genome, has the evolutionists stumped. In this scenario any variation/mutation now is seen to include, on the average, 3 to 4 gene sites. In addition, in order to propogate such variation/mutation an exact and Simultaneous variation/mutation must accompany it ijn the the other spouses genome, if the trait is to be matched/paired and passed on!!!! The odds of all this happening at the same time in different individuals is ZERO.
Sorry I went so long on my soapbox, but for parents fighting against hostile school boards who insist on evloution teaching, some of these ideas might help.
Again, no time for spell or grammar checks or for typos.
Ba Shem Yeshua Sarenu Shalom TEFE