http://ipatriot.com/god-13-colonies/

God In the 13 Colonies

God In The 13 Colonies is a simple reminder of the involvement that God has had in the formation and development of the United States politically, socially, financially, and spiritually. His involvement and oversight were repeatedly mentioned and invoked by the Founding Fathers at both the state and federal levels. The American Declaration of Independence provides the very foundation for the original colonies’ rejection of British rule and authority. The foundation laid was that Britain had violated the rules of God in their mismanagement of its empire, and that ultimately the rights of men and women are issued by God Himself and not the government.

Where did they get the ideas they espoused? They got them from reading and practicing the principles found in the Bible. The impact of the Bible on their thinking was so prevalent that it influenced the formation of the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and every state constitution. If that is truly the case then we should see evidence of God in the 13 colonies, shouldn’t we?

There seems to be an ongoing debate about the appropriateness (or inappropriateness, as some would say) of including – or even mentioning – God in politics. Many people have a misconstrued impression of the involvement of God in the 13 colonies, and insist that God was deliberately excluded from the governmental structure of America. They frequently mention the fabled ‘separation of church and state’ in an attempt to distance themselves from God’s rule and authority. Since this outlook seems to be so pervasive I decided to do some reviewing to settle the question using facts and history, not personal bias and opinion.

Of the 13 original American Colonies, every one of them mentions God in their reasoning for the establishment of a new form of government (both state and federal). This reasoning, acceptance and acknowledgement in and upon Him is worded within the founding documents of these several states, namely in the State Constitutions. I have italicized and emboldened the passages which reference the Lord and/or the reasons for their gratefulness.

Connecticut

“The People of Connecticut acknowledging with gratitude, the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government; do, in order more effectually to define, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights and privileges which they have derived from their ancestors; hereby, after a careful consideration and revision, ordain and establish the following constitution and form of civil government.”

Delaware

“Through Divine goodness, all people have by nature the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences, of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and property, and in general of obtaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury by one to another; and as these rights are essential to their welfare, for due exercise thereof, power is inherent in them; and therefore all just authority in the institutions of political society is derived from the people, and established with their consent, to advance their happiness; and they may for this end, as circumstances require, from time to time, alter their Constitution of government.”

Georgia

“To perpetuate the principles of free government, insure justice to all, preserve peace, promote the interest and happiness of the citizen and of the family, and transmit to posterity the enjoyment of liberty, we the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Maryland

“We, the People of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare:”

Massachusetts

“The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.

The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.

We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” 

New Hampshire

New Hampshire did not contain a preamble to their State Constitution. However, they enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights and through the Articles .

1. “Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship GOD according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person, liberty or estate for worshipping GOD, in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession, sentiments or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or disturb others, in their religious worship. 
2. As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as the knowledge of these, is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the DEITY, and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote those important purposes, the people of this state have a right to impower, and do hereby fully impower the legislature to authorize from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this state, to make adequate provision at their own expence, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality:”

New Jersey

“We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

New York

“We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.”

North Carolina

“We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Pennsylvania

“WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Rhode Island

“We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution of government.”

South Carolina

“We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the preservation and perpetuation of the same.”

Virginia

Virginia did not contain a preamble to their entire State Constitution. However, they enumerated rights through the Articles of that Constitution, especially Section 16;

“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”

The God that the Founding Fathers referenced (in every single instance) was the God of the Bible. The Scriptures they so frequently mentioned are the Scriptures of the Bible. The religion of the day in the American colonies was the Christian religion. There is no mention of Allah, Buddha, Taoism, shamanism or anything else.

It’s crystal clear that the people who set up the governmental structure of the states referenced God’s involvement as the cause of their gratefulness. They acknowledged His protection and often invoked His guidance, meaning guidance in the very process of setting up – and administering – their new government! Since this is verifiable fact, then why would those very same people attempt to exclude God from the way we were to conduct ourselves in that same governmental structure? To present that as an ‘argument’ against including the Bible and Christian thought in governmental operations is, quite frankly, insane. If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers to have God in the 13 colonies, it ought to be good enough for us as well.

The next time someone wants to exclude Him from public life, please gently and patiently remind them that God (in general) and the Christian faith (specifically) is responsible for the enjoyment of the liberties we currently have in the United States of America. That is a fact, at least according to the people who set up this system of government in the first place.

Image retrieved from:http://www.ducksters.com/history/colonial_america/thirteen_colonies.php

Tags: 13 Colonies

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.arky.org/Constitution/IOTC/Lecture-11_1.doc

THE PRINCIPLE APPROACH TO EDUCATION –

THE PRINCIPLE APPROACH TO EDUCATION –

RESTORING AMERICA THROUGH A RETURN TO

 

In June 2010, the Institute on the Constitution (IOTC) in Pasadena, Maryland contacted me, saying, "You are graduating more people from these classes in southwest Ohio than anywhere else in the nation. What are you doing?" I told them that while John Eidsmoe was teaching students about the Constitution, I was teaching them how to use the Constitution.

 

As part of the IOTC curriculum, I was incorporating a system of learning known as the Principle Approach, the method of education used by our Founding Fathers.  This enables the students to begin to think and reason for themselves from a biblical worldview. Unlike our current education system that teaches students what to think, the Principle Approach uses definitions from Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary, seven biblical principles and leading questions to help students search out the truth in any subject. This approach will be laid out in more detail in the pages following.  For the IOTC classes, we used applications that relate to government and history.

 

The Principle Approach method is known as the “Four R’S” – 

• Research - using the Bible, Webster's 1828 Dictionary and other primary sources, such as the founders’ original writings, so as to better define terms.

• Reason - using leading questions to identify truth or former misconceptions.

• Relate - relating this truth to history, a current event or any subject before us.

• Record - write it down or use it; i.e. contacting Congressman or speaking to others with Constitutional or principled arguments rather than opinions.

 

The Principle Approach was accidently endorsed by the Nehemiah Institute, a Christian research organization formed in the 1980s for the purpose of returning Americans to a biblical way of thinking. To that end they created the PEERS test, not an academic exam, but rather a diagnostic tool to identify and measure the students’ worldview in the areas of Politics, Economics, Education, Religion, and Social issues.

 

They expected to be able to dramatically demonstrate the difference in worldviews between Christians in the public schools versus Christians in Christian schools. What they learned instead was jolting: The results showed that while the Christian school students slightly surpassed the public schools in their proximity to a biblical worldview, there was one group of schools that was far superior to the average Christian school in its ability to develop a scriptural perspective on everything. Upon further investigation, they learned these outstanding schools were using a method called the Principle Approach, a name they had never heard before.

 

The data from the PEERS test was both enlightening and intriguing. While both the public and Christian school students’ biblical worldview was steadily plummeting through the years further into secular humanism and socialism, the Principle Approach students were growing stronger in their biblical worldview. The PEERS Trend Chart shows both of these stark developments very clearly.  

 

Reading the PEERS Trend Chart (file located on this CD – “03-Intro-PEERS Test Results.pdf”)

Looking at the yellow box on the top right entitled, "PEERS Worldview Scale," one can see the correlation between the test scores and the various worldviews. Scores over 70 represent a biblical worldview, with scores below that identified in decreasing order as a moderate Christian, a secular humanism or a socialism worldview.

 

The Principle Approach schools, marked in green, consistently scored not only above the other schools, but grew in their understanding of a biblical worldview through the years. Conversely, both the public and traditional Christian schools declined in their understanding of a biblical worldview as the years passed. Perhaps the most alarming of all is that the traditional Christian school results were lower in 2002 than the public schools were in 1988. 

 

Sample Test Statements

To better understand this data, below is the scoring method, along with a sampling of statements from the PEERS test with which students are to rate their level of agreement or disagreement:

• The concept of family, traditionally understood as a father, mother, and children, needs to be redefined to include other types of committed relationships.

• Because human nature is constantly changing, values and ethics will also change. Therefore, each generation should be free to adopt moral standards appropriate to their preferences.

• A primary function of civil government is to enact educational and social programs designed to prevent overpopulation of its land.

​

Christian​Secular

Conservative​Liberal

​Possible Answers​Statement​Statement

 

​Strongly agree​    +5​     -5

​Tend to agree​    +3 ​     -3

​Neutral​      0​      0

​Tend to disagree​     -3​    +3

​Strongly disagree​     -5​    +5

 

Conclusion

The evidence is both clear and alarming: Public and traditional Christian schools are failing to create a biblical worldview in their students. The other evidence is equally clear, but inspirational: The Principle Approach schools are building citizens who can  increasingly think and reason from a biblical perspective, an absolutely essential element in restoring America to its biblical foundations of limited, constitutional government.

 

How the Principle Approach Works

The Principle Approach is the form of teaching and learning our Founding Fathers adhered to and taught. It was this process of learning that led to the very documents and form of government that we are studying.  It is a life long learning method that is slowly re-emerging in the educational arena. Because of the depth of it, there is neither time nor space here to teach the approach in its entirety; however a short example is set out below. (In the materials I have put in this manual, there are specific examples of how to incorporate this approach to both learning and application.)

 

Webster's 1828 Dictionary   

Noah Webster was a master of 27 languages and dedicated years of his life to compiling the first American dictionary. His mastery of language and strong Christian underpinnings are two main reasons for using this specific dictionary, but the third and greatest reason is to overcome modern revisionist definitions. Words and their meaning matter!  The following example will dramatically demonstrate this phenomenon:

 

right - conformity to standards or prevailing conditions. (Harcourt Brace Dictionary, 1968)

 

right - according to the will of God (Webster's 1828 Dictionary)

 

The modern dictionary declares that right is determined by the circumstances in which we find ourselves. No absolute standard.  Webster's 1828 sets forth an absolute truth.

 

Seven Biblical Principles

1. God’s Sovereignty

2. Man’s Individuality

3. Government [self – family – church – civil]

4. Property or Stewardship

5. Christian Character

6. Sowing and Reaping or Education

7. Unity and Union or Covenant

 

Leading Questions

The purpose of leading ideas or questions is to guide the student to the Biblical or Constitutional root of any issue, policy or law. Using the Four R’s (Research – Reason – Relate – Record) to answer these questions, students are taken through a process of thinking that teaches them a biblical worldview. 

 

Sample leading questions are:

• What is the foundation of all Law?

• What is the purpose of law?

• Does this policy, action, law or idea fit the criteria, or adhere to the principles and tenets of law and/or our U. S. Constitution?

 

Answers to these basic research questions are built upon by asking more leading questions to teach the student biblical reasoning, and ultimately relating that reasoning to the question before them. For example, let's use the 4 R’s on the following statement:

 

The Supreme Court decision of Roe vs Wade made abortion the law of the land, legal in all 50 states.

 

Research - 

Leading Question -  What is the foundation of all Law?

[Answer] - The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God  

[Source] - Declaration of Independence, U. S. Constitution, & Webster's 1828 Dictionary

 

Next Leading Question - What are the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God?

[Answer] - The Laws of Nature's God -  the moral law…contained in the …10 commandments written by the finger of God.

[Source] – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary 

 

[Next Answer] - The Law of Nature – A rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator, and existing prior to any positive [written] precept. Thus, it is a law of nature that one man should not injure another, and murder and fraud would be crimes, independent of any [written] prohibition from the supreme power.

[Source] - Webster’s 1828 Dictionary 

 

Reason - 
In other words, the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God come from God and the Bible. The first is written, the other is intuitively and instinctively known to man, written in his heart by God, his Creator.  Both are derived from the principle of God's Sovereignty as the Supreme Ruler of the universe.  

 

Relate – 

Leading Question - Can abortion, the taking of an innocent life (murder), be legalized by a court decision?

 

Record –

[Answer] - Clearly and simply – no!  In order for man’s law to be valid, it must conform to God's law.   The Supreme Court (man) does not have the authority to overrule the Supreme Being (God's) law.  In addition, the Constitution declares only Congress has the authority to make law ( Article I, Section 1), not the courts, and this Congressional law must still conform to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” to be legitimate.

 

 

For more information, go online to www.principleapproach.org or call the Foundation for American Christian Education (F.A.C.E.) at 800-352-3223.   Or, if interested in a 90-minute demonstration of the Principle Approach in action, call Ricki Pepin at 937-322-3149 or e-mail – ricki@pepin.com

Lecture Eleven: Email Article #1​ Page 1 of 4

 

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/converting-wrong-reasons

On Converting for the Wrong Reasons

The last few weeks have seen the ranks of the #NeverTrump crowd dwindling somewhat as several once-staunch opponents of The Donald have concluded that, despite their myriad objections to Trump’s positions and personality, he would still be preferable to Hilary Clinton as president. Now, the dominance of the two-party system in the United States has resulted in many a voter casting his ballot less in support of one candidate than in opposition to another candidate over our nation’s electoral history—this would be nothing new. The difference, and the interest, lies in the apologia that some of these Trump converts make for their position: we are told by a number of new Trumpers that a President Trump is certain to be more friendly to traditional Republican interests, that his antics are only intended to rile up a key portion of the electorate to sweep him into the White House, and that post-inauguration we can trust him to appoint originalist Supreme Court justices, deal effectively with Congress, and charmingly engage our foreign allies. “He can change!” they plead.

Take radio host Hugh Hewitt. After pushing for changes to convention rules to thwart Trump’s nomination, Hewitt recently made an about-face and wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post backing Trump against Hilary Clinton—not because he supports Mr. Trump’s positions, mind you, but because “the prospect of another President Clinton, especially a Clinton who is so mired in scandal, compromised on national security and is the author of so many foreign-policy meltdowns, has a way of concentrating the mind.” While voicing his support for Trump as the only viable choice to prevent Secretary Clinton from being elected, Hewitt also signals what he expects, or would like, Trump to do going forward in his campaign: “Trump’s task now is clear: It’s time to abandon his off-the-cuff remarks, disengage from his battles with the media and methodically prosecute the case that throughout her career, [Hillary] Clinton has consistently displayed a disqualifying lack of judgment. He needs to develop this argument, detail it and drive it home.”

Any priest worth his collar would respond to an affianced person making such a plea about their intended by encouraging them to think carefully about their situation and seriously consider whether this was a proper match for them. A marriage that begins with the requirement that one party eventually change and the expectation that they will is not starting out on the best footing. (And here we mean significant changes—not so much “stop leaving your dirty socks in the living room” as “stop abusing alcohol and get a job.”) Choosing a marriage partner is a much more momentous and lasting choice than selecting a candidate to support in a given election, but the comparison holds in the crucial aspect: when we choose someone while hoping they’ll change, then what is it that we’re choosing?

My point here is not to focus on Trump himself, but to use the situation his presumptive nomination has created as an analogy for a certain type of convert to the Catholic faith. (The analogy limps, as all analogies do, but let’s take it as far as it can go.) I take as my exemplar former British prime minister Tony Blair, who converted to Catholicism shortly after leaving office in 2007. Mr. Blair’s wife and children were already Catholics, and he frequently attended Mass, so the news was not particularly surprising to many. Blair said of his conversion, “As time went on, I had been going to Mass for a long time … it’s difficult to find the right words. I felt this was right for me. There was something, not just about the doctrine of the Church, but of the universal nature of the Catholic Church.”

However, not long after being received into the Church, Mr. Blair began to openly criticize the Church for its teachings on several aspects of sexual morality. An article in Newsweek informed us that “Though a devout believer, he stands in opposition to his pope on issues like abortion, embryonic-stem-cell research and the rights of gay people to adopt children and form civil unions. ‘I guess there’s probably not many people of any religious faith who fully agree with every aspect of the teaching of the leaders of their faith,’ he says.” In an interview, Blair said, “Actually, we need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith,” attributing the Church’s consistent teaching on these matters to a mere “generation gap.”

Is not such an attitude puzzling, event troubling? Just how did Mr. Blair feel “at home” in the Church if he considers it bigoted, benighted, and befuddled, like a grandparent who “was just raised that way”? The Church considers its teachings to be an integral whole, one inseparable from the other and all interwoven with one another. Does Mr. Blair accept that the Church is divinely guided in its teachings on the divinity of Christ and the grace of the sacraments but not in certain areas of morality? How could that be? The answer may come in that Mr. Blair is by trade a politician; I fear he, like too many others, views the teachings of the Church as though they were the planks of a political party platform—how often are they called “positions” in the media?—to be debated or negotiated at will.

To be clear, not every person who struggles with an aspect of Church teaching falls under this criticism. It is one thing to approach the Church and say, “I would like to enter the Church, but the Church’s teaching on X, Y, and Z is very different from the way I am used to thinking; I am still working that out, but I trust Our Lord when he said that the Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth, and I will be docile and listen.” It is another thing to say, “I would like to enter the Church, but the Church is in error on X, Y, and Z, and I trust that the Church will bow to the spirit of the times, and I will be vocal and intractable.” The former shows humility; the latter, stubbornness at best, arrogance at worst.

To return to our earlier analogy: if you think Donald Trump would make a good president, by all means, follow your judgments and support him. But why would you support him then demand he change, in such fundamental ways? He is unlikely to suddenly transform into some cross between Pericles and Benjamin Disraeli. This is to support a candidate not for what he is, but for what he might be, or what you wish he were—the very phenomenon many saw surrounding Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. If you think the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of truth and possesses the fullness of the means of grace by which men can be saved, by all means, follow your judgments and enter the Church. But would you enter the Church then demand radical change? The Church is unlikely to suddenly morph into some version of the United Nations with occasional ritual practices.

The Catholic faith presents the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as God’s personal fulfillment of His promises to humanity. It teaches us how to live lives of goodness and holiness in accord with our God-given natures, to love God and neighbor with the love of Christ. This is the saving message the Church proposes to the world. If it is accepted in its entirety, it is the start of a lifelong journey toward ever-deeper friendship with God. If it is carved up and taken piecemeal, it will not satisfy, but will become a mere accoutrement to your daily activities—something you do, and not who you are (as my wife has wisely put it). And such accessories are all too easily shunted off when they no longer fit our tastes.

(Photo credit: Reuters)

Sent from my iPhone

CREATION: ORIGIN OF LIFE

Institution for Creation Research

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The question about the origin of life is more complicated than that. Non-living chemicals can't create life. So, how did life begin? 

Investigate this question further: http://www.icr.org/creation-origin-of-life/

HENRY PATINO:

Who Came First the Chicken or the Egg?

The cell uses a chemical known as adenosine triphosphate (ATP) or a similar one called guanosine triphosphate (GTP) by breaking off one of the phosphate groups. This release of one or more phosphates can then be used for the energy to carry out various tasks. It is the portable battery that pushes forward chemical reactions.

Normally, inside the living cell, there is this extremely complicated, well-organized chemical powerhouse, known, as the mitochondria made of specialized proteins. For a cell to function it must be able to create a mechanism for producing usable energy to accomplish the many varied tasks that it must perform to stay alive. But the chemical process involved in the mitochondria is so complex that it is impossible for it to have come first; and yet without it the cell could not exist. The cell needs energy to create proteins, but it needs proteins to create the mitochondria that creates energy.

This "organic power plant" or powerhouse allows the cell to do its many metabolic functions. The ingenious way in which the molecules of Adenosine Tri Phosphate (ATP) carries energy by giving off one of the phosphates and becoming Adenosine Diphosphate allows the cell the raw energy to accomplish many of its functions.

The ATP is manufactured from glucose through a process known as glycolosis. But this process of glycolosis is accomplished through ten discreet steps, each catalyzed by a specific protein. And these specific proteins are in turn created from the genetic information of the DNA. 

Evolution has a problem here. You cannot have the process of translation and transcription without energy from the ATP through glycolosis, but you cannot have glycolosis without the DNA. How did the DNA develop its complicated double helix structure containing the master genetic code without ATP? Or how did ATP develop through glycolosis without the proteins created by the DNA? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? But, this is not the only place where evolution meets such an impossible conundrum:

“Besides transcribing and translating, the cell’s information-processing system also replicates DNA. This happens whenever cells divide and copy themselves. As with the process of transcription and translation, the process of DNA replication depends on many separate protein catalysts to unwind, stabilize, copy, edit, and rewind the original DNA message. In prokaryote cells, DNA replication involves more than thirty specialized proteins to perform tasks necessary for building and accurately copying the genetic molecule. These specialized proteins include DNA polymerase, primases, helicases, topoisomerases, DNA-building proteins, DNA ligases, and editing enzymes. DNA needs these proteins to copy the genetic information contained in DNA. But the proteins that copy the genetic information in DNA are themselves built from that information. This again poses what is at the very least, a curiosity; the production of proteins requires DNA, but the production of DNA requires proteins.” (Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 2009, pg. 131) (Emphasis mine)

It poses more than a curiosity. It means that the DNA language and the double helix metastructure, as well as the protein language and the ribosomal metastructure which manufactures them, must have all evolved simultaneously. There are no small gradual and incremental evolutionary steps that can account for the gene expression system.

This DNA is suspended in a salt solution, the cellular fluid, so that it may be accessed in order to replicate itself. Without the ability of DNA to replicate, cells could not divide and life could not endure beyond the age of a single cell. Life could not replicate without DNA. The DNA also provides for the cell the ability to assemble amino acids into precise types of proteins. Without it the metabolism of the cell could not exist. The code (software) and the hardware that it uses to function are both highly elaborate and incredibly sophisticated. Through this code, proteins are fabricated to tailor made designs that serve an enormous number of specific tasks. But the DNA itself needs some of these specific proteins to replicate. Without these many specified proteins DNA could not replicate. Which came first?

“The integrated complexity of the cell’s information-processing system has prompted some profound reflection. As Lewontin asks, ‘What makes the proteins that are necessary to make the protein?’ As David Goodsell puts it, this ‘is one of the unanswered riddles of biochemistry: which came first, proteins or protein synthesis? If proteins are needed to make proteins, how did the whole thing get started?’ The end result of protein synthesis is required before it can begin.

The interdependence of proteins and nucleic acids raises many obvious ‘chicken and egg’ dilemmas- dilemmas that origin-of-life theorists before the 1960’s neither anticipated nor addressed. The cell needs proteins to process and express the information in DNA in order to build proteins. But the construction of DNA molecules (during the process of DNA replication) also requires proteins. So which came first the chicken (nucleic acids) or the egg (protein)? If proteins must have arisen first, then how did they do so, since all extant cells construct proteins from the assembly instructions in DNA? How did either arise without the other?” (Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 2009, pg. 134)

It has taken us the concerted effort of thousands of brilliant minds continuously working for the span of several decades, just to decipher the meaning of the human genetic code. The sheer brainpower and countless man-hours involved in the Genome Project are quite impressive. And, it has been stated that its completion is perhaps one of science’s most incredible accomplishments in our entire human history.

Cracking the human genetic code is in fact one of the most impressive milestones in our scientific accomplishments. Surely the efforts of the best minds in our generation need to be applauded. But, if interpreting the language is that complicated, am I to believe that the creation of this magnificently designed language was merely accidental?

The assertion that this wonderfully complex biological language, contained within our DNA, which uses two codes and integrates them in a circular closed loop system, developed by random chemical processes is nothing more than a statement of blind faith based on no scientific empirical data.

http://www.mylifetree.com/soulfeed/lets-stop-seeing-age-18-parenting-finish-line-mmm-k/

LET’S STOP SEEING AGE 18 AS THE PARENTING FINISH LINE, MMM K?

When I was an eighteen-year-old college freshmen, during spring break my friends and I (all females) hitchhiked  from a grimy bar in Matamoros, Mexico across the US border in a stranger’s van at 2AM in the morning.

Why??? Because we were eighteen and livin’ the dream! (Translation: we were being naive, risky and incredibly stupid in a drug-cartel-ridden city best known for kidnapping and murder.) And apparently this was our version of “problem solving” when after a few hours of karaoke and dancing around the dirt floor of a bar with some charming locals, we discovered that we were stranded on the wrong side of the border—with no money and no means of transportation back to our hotel in South Padre Island, Texas.

We were also VERY lucky as the driver of the creepy white van who picked us up along a dark road on the outskirts of town must have been a patron saint of foolish college coeds disguised as a nice young man from Texas. He safely drove us home without incident. Disaster averted. (Thank you, God! Seriously, you sent us an angel that night, didn’t you?)

Needless to say, this less-than wise decision was just one example that proved I hadn’t mastered “adulting” at eighteen-years-old. (I still haven’t really mastered adulting, but at least I’m self-aware of it and certainly not hitching rides in stranger’s vans in Mexico.)

Now, as the mom of an eighteen-year-old son heading off to college in a few months, I can’t help but cringe when I hear people say they’re looking forward to parenting being “done” when their kids turn eighteen and leave the nest.

Frankly, it’s just hogwash.

Some things change when kids turn eighteen, but not everything

The idea that kids reach adult maturity at age eighteen has been around a long time. It’s so ingrained in our culture that we’ve established significant legal milestones on the 18th birthday. For instance, when my son turned eighteen:

• I lost all access to his medical records and information
• He can vote (yikes!)
• He can enlist in the military and go fight in a war.
• He can go to “big boy” prison (with serial killers and drug cartels) if he commits a crime.
• He can get his own credit cards—and wreck his credit score for a decade.
• I won’t even be able to attend his course planning sessions at college orientation (a painful fact I learned while ugly-crying on the other side of the adviser’s door at his older sister’s college orientation)

Because of my legal guardianship abruptly ending when my son turns eighteen, it’s easy to feel like the world is has declared that my parenting job has officially ended—like I’ve completed the course and crossed the finish line of the final exam.

Dear imaginary parenting exam proctor: I’m NOT finished yet! Your nerve-wracking call for “Pencils down, hands up” is bogus!

I have two bones of contention to pick with you, and here’s what they are:

1. First, an eighteen-year-old’s brain is still developing. (Please continuing reading for the real science behind this!)
2. Secondly, I’M NOT DONE YET, and I don’t appreciate being told “Parenting is over—here’s your final grade on this project!” (We’ll get to that in a minute.)

News Alert: Brain science agrees with me!

The idea that my eighteen-year-old son has reached adult maturity is plainly ridiculous. Have you met him? He’s a smart, wonderful kid, and I’m so proud of him, but he appears consistently incapable of thinking beyond his own needs. (Especially about anything occurring beyond tomorrow.)

I’ve tried my best to teach him all of the important life skills, but there are so many, and there hasn’t been enough time for him to practice! He’s still overwhelmed at the thought of scheduling a series of physical therapy appointments on his own—let alone battle with health insurance claims. His mastery of cooking stops at pancakes. He always mixes his light and dark laundry and doesn’t read garment labels (yup, he was the varsity baseball pitcher in the pink pants!) He gets ridiculously grumpy about “having” to hand-write thank you notes. He leaves a massive trail of dirty socks, fast food cups, athletic cups, and other various sports equipment all over the house. He drives too fast and can’t parallel park without running over my petunias. And he has something that smells like rotting meat in his bedroom and he. Doesn’t. Even. Care.

So…he’s still exactly what most normal teenagers are like—and nothing magical happened on his 18th birthday that turned him into a fully functioning adult.

Also, I remember what I was like at eighteen and clearly “mature” isn’t the word I’d use to describe myself.

And fortunately it’s not just some maturity deficit that runs in our family, because recent brain science confirms: a teenager’s brain is NOT fully developed at eighteen-years-old.

>>Related: A Parent’s Guide to Understanding Teenage Brains

This brain research is actually really interesting (and relieving for parents!). People used to believe that kids’ brains were 95% developed by age six (as if!). And since puberty has fully occurred by age eighteen, kids were considered adults at that point.

But thanks to MRI technology and advances in neuroscience in the last decade, we have a much clearer picture of the structure and functioning that occurs inside a teenager’s brain.  It’s now believed that their brains are only at 80% of full maturity by age eighteen, and often aren’t done completing the full synapse connections until the age of 25-30.

So basically my teenage son’s brain is like a pan of under-cooked brownies: firm around the perimeter but still squishy in the center.

And that under-cooked part? It’s solely located in the prefrontal cortex—the very important part of the brain that controls the exact behaviors that cause parents to face-palm on a daily basis! This is the part of the brain that controls impulses, risk-taking behavior, emotional reactions, moderates social behaviors, decision-making, long-range planning, understanding future consequences of current behavior…maturity.

Yes, that’s right! Eighteen-year-old’s are not finished cookin’! They might look like they’re fully ready from the outside, but stick a fork in ’em and you’ve got a hot mess with no structure.

In other words, STILL SQUISHY.

As long as his gooey brownie center is still cooking (and even after that), I’m going to remain an important guiding influence in his life. (And since I love brownies—and my son, I’ll not ever relinquish my title as his mother!)

Please don’t grade my parenting

Which brings me to my second point (Dear self—listen up!): I don’t appreciate my parenting being judged based on how my kid has “turned out” at age eighteen. In fact, I don’t appreciate it being judged, period.

The love I have for my kids, and the energy I’ve invested into their hearts, bodies, and minds, isn’t the kind of thing that can be graded.

Feeling like I’m “getting a grade” once they reach this mystical milestone of eighteen-years-old is living under the law, and Jesus sets us free from the law. ALWAYS. I’m NOT graded by anything, and especially not by how my kids are going to “turn out. ”

Yes, I have a responsibility to raise them well. Yes, I need to pay attention to appropriate developmental milestones throughout their life in case something needs some extra intervention. Yes, I can take pride in their accomplishments. And yes, I’ll grieve their failures with them.

But my value and my kids’ value isn’t measured by the “results” of my parenting. It’s measured exclusively by Jesus.

Jesus offers grace, not a grade.

Fellow parents, unite with me against these imaginary notions that  age-based milestones define who are kids are, and who we are as parents. When we hear the false command, “Pencils down, hands up,” let’s ignore it, mmm k?

Instead, let’s let go of the pressure we’re feeling to produce super-human adults by the age of eighteen and instead simply savor our kids exactly as they are in this squishy-messy season.

Let’s not feel like we have to rush them into adulthood, nor hold them back from it.

Let’s encourage them to venture out into the world (but maybe avoid Matamoros) and gain their independence, remembering that their inevitable stumbles and screw-ups will be an important part of their maturing process.

Let’s stop feeling the guilt of “parenting fail” when our kids make poor or immature choices and instead find relief in trusting that God’s plan is still in place. (Remember—our kids see the next few months of their lives, parents see the next few years of their lives…but only God knows the whole path of their life journey.)

And let’s look beyond their achievements or failures as defined by the world, and take the time to see them through the eyes of Jesus.

May we breathe a deep sigh of relief and remember that no matter what, Jesus loves them unconditionally, and he’s not tracking their score or yours.

Age eighteen is not the finish line—for them, or for their parents.

Truth? There is no finish line.

Written by Kami Gilmour, co-host of They Say podcast, wife and the mom of 5 teen and young adult kids. She’s also the co-creator of SoulFeed college care packages, designed to help keep parents and college kids connected to what matters most.

Sent from my iPhone

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/opinion/being-dishonest-about-ugliness.html?mwrsm=Facebook&referer=

Being Dishonest About Ugliness

ADULTS often tangle themselves in knots when discussing physical appearance with children. We try to iron out differences by insisting they don’t matter, attribute a greater moral fortitude to the plain or leap in defensively when someone is described as not conventionally attractive, or — worse — ugly or fat. After all, there are better, kinder words to use, or other characteristics to focus on.

The Australian author Robert Hoge, who describes himself as “the ugliest person you’ve never met,” thinks we get it all wrong when we tell children looks don’t matter: “They know perfectly well they do.”

A former speechwriter, he has written a book for children, based on his own life story, called “Ugly.” He finds children are relieved when a grown person talks to them candidly about living with flawed features in a world of facial inequality. It’s important they know that it’s just one thing in life, one characteristic among others.

That appearance, in other words, means something but it doesn’t mean everything.

Mr. Hoge was born with a tumor on his face, and deformed legs.

He describes his face by asking us to imagine being in art class after the teacher has presented you with a lump of wet clay and asked you to sculpt a baby’s face. You labor and sweat, tearing off lumps, smoothing lines, shaping a nose, eyes, chin. Beautiful. Then a kid tears across the room and smashes a clay lump into the middle of the face, pushing the eyes apart.

That’s what he looked like when he was born; his parents burst into tears.

Mr. Hoge says that his mother left him in the hospital, wishing he would die. It was not until he was almost five weeks old, after a family meeting where his siblings voted for him to be brought home, that his parents returned for him. He grew up to be a political adviser to the most senior politician in his state: the Queensland premier.

So how is a child to grapple with the savage social hierarchy of “lookism” that usually begins in the playground, if adults are so clumsy about it? The advantage of beauty has been long established in social science; we know now that it’s not just employers, teachers, lovers and voters who favor the aesthetically gifted, but parents, too.

Interactive Feature | Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

We talk about body shape, size and weight, but rarely about distorted features. And we talk about plainness, but not faces that would make a surgeon’s fingers itch.

Even in children’s literature, we imply ugliness is either transient or deserved. Hans Christian Andersen wrestled with rejection from his peers as a child, most probably because of his large nose, effeminate ways, beautiful singing voice and love of theater; “The Ugly Duckling” is widely assumed to be the story of his own life. But the moral of that story was that a swan would emerge from the body of an outcast, and that you could not repress the nobility of a swan in a crowd of common ducks.

What if you just stay a duck?

Mr. Hoge tells us we don’t need to apply a sepia filter. “I’m happy to concede the point,” he says, “that some people look more aesthetically pleasing than others. Let’s grant that so we can move to the important point — so what?

“Some kids are good spellers; some have bad haircuts; some are fast runners; some kids are short; some are awesome at netball. But the kids who are short aren’t only short. And the kids who are great at netball aren’t only just great at netball. No one is only just one thing. It’s the same with appearance.”

It’s important to talk to children, he says, before “they get sucked into the tight vortex of peer pressure, where every single difference is a case for disaster. Don’t tell kids they’re all beautiful; tell them it’s O.K. to look different.”

Perhaps it’s the long association of physical ugliness with immorality that we need to unpack. The Oxford Dictionary includes in its definition of ugly in English “morally repugnant.” In Greek, the word “kalos” means both beauty and noble, while “aischros” means shameful as well as ugly. Ugly characters in kids’ books are generally horrible and their physical flaws are signs of other shortcomings. Villains have bad teeth, liars have long noses, zombies have thick skulls. The miserly are bony, the greedy, fat.

And perhaps we also need to spend more time pointing to some of the magnificent creatures who have walked the earth without the need for pageant ribbons or Instagram likes, but who have contributed in enduring ways — think, maybe, about Abraham Lincoln.

And finally, surely we should also ensure that those known for attributes other than good genes are included in any pantheon of childhood heroes.

I didn’t ban Barbie dolls in my house, for example, but I did get a little nervous when my little girl accumulated a decent-size clique of them. One day I decided to buy her an Eleanor Roosevelt doll from a museum shop; the splendid former first lady’s strong, striking features are framed by a red velvet cloak and a feather boa. I was a little reticent giving it to her for fear clever Eleanor might be rejected in favor of the pretty girls. Now she sleeps with her every night.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-oxytocin-social-20160620-snap-story.html?utm_source=eGaMorning&utm_campaign=b2d0cb600a-6_21_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_54a77f93dd-b2d0cb600a-71062770

Could wear and tear on the 'love hormone' gene make us less social?

We intuitively know that our personalities and temperaments — whether we’re introverts or extroverts, how we respond to novelty or adversity, whether we’re hard-driving or laid back — are the result of a complex interaction of nature and nurture.

We likely start with some general social tendencies established by genes inherited from our parents. But it seems equally evident that experience matters. Did you grow up beloved or neglected? Have your surroundings and people close to you encouraged confident exploration or grim self-protection? What has happened when you stumbled? The answers, we suspect, play a role in sculpting the social selves we come to be from the raw material nature provides.

If only we understood the machinery by which nature and nurture interact to produce the social creatures we are and will become. We might gain new appreciation for our individual differences. We might know better how to prevent the emergence of despair, anxiety and hate. In adulthood, we might make choices — in diet and exercise, in friends, in pastimes — that promote the development of our better social selves.

A new study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, takes a small first step on that long, winding road. It explores how “epigenetics” — the ever-changing instructions that turn genes off and on — interact with a key gene to influence our social behavior.

The gene in question is one which codes for the production of oxytocin, a hormone that’s been associated with trust, sociability and nurturing behaviors. And the epigenetic mechanism studied is methylation, a chemical signaling tool that can result from environmental wear and tear.

DNA methylation is just one way that the epigenome acts to turn certain genes off. It’s a normal and common epigenetic mechanism, but it’s not always internally driven, and it’s not always benign. Increasingly, research suggests that environmental factors such as toxins, stress, malnutrition and social adversity can cause the methylation of genes, switching them to the “off” position.

In 121 study participants, the new research found that the level of methylation seen on the oxytocin gene is a good predictor of a person’s comfort in forming social bonds and ability to judge others’ emotional states. The oxytocin gene’s methylation level was also linked to the strength of activity seen in regions of the brain that are crucial to social functioning. And in the case of one brain structure that plays a key role in our ability to read others’ intentions — the right fusiform gyrus — the oxytocin gene’s methylation level was also linked to size.

Harvesting the oxytocin gene from participants’ saliva, researchers from the University of Georgia, Emory University and Stanford University found that among those who carried a more methylated version, average sociability levels were lower, and activity levels and volume in brain regions linked to sociability were lower as well. Among those whose oxytocin genes were least methylated, they found “attachment styles” that were more secure, greater skill in reading others’ states of mind, and brains that appeared better built for positive social interaction.

Oxytocin, a hormone produced by the brain’s hypothalamus, is sometimes called the “love hormone.” Research has shown it wells up when a mother nurses her infant, when men in hunter-gatherer societies return home from the hunt, and when humans gaze into the soulful eyes of their pet dogs. Research has linked autism and its social deficits with specific variations in the gene that codes for the oxytocin receptor. And inhaled oxytocin is considered a promising aid to social-skills training in those with autism.

Along with recent studies that have tied changes in the oxytocin gene with a range of social behaviors, “this is a very exciting area of investigation and represents a new frontier of social psychology,” said neuroscientist Sarina Saturn of the University of Portland.

“Many of our personality traits are dictated by our genes — inherited,” added Saturn, who wasn’t involved in the new study. “But this area of research implies that our DNA can also learn from powerful emotional and social experiences” and influence how our brains and bodies respond to social stimuli, she added.

The new research is far from definitive in its findings. University of Georgia psychology professor Brian W. Haas, who led the study team, acknowledged that the authors did not actually measure oxytocin levels in study participants, just methylation of the oxytocin genes found in their saliva. An increased level of DNA methylation is normally associated with that gene’s decreased expression. In the case of the oxytocin production gene, more methylation should have resulted in less oxytocin in a participant’s brain and bloodstream.

“It’s a leap” to assume that those with methylated oxytocin genes had less oxytocin, Haas said. “We don’t know that empirically.”

Harvard University geneticist Steven McCarroll, who studies the genetics of psychiatric disease and was not involved in the new research, added that since epigenetic changes act differently on genes throughout the body, there’s no certainty that the methylation of oxytocin genes in saliva reflects the methylation of the same genes in the brain.

“There’s a lot of  good evidence that oxytocin levels fluctuate in response to experience,” McCarroll said.  “But whether that relates to methylation is not known, and we wouldn’t want to accept it — or dismiss it — casually.” At the very least, he added, “you’d want to measure that in the cells that actually make the oxytocin and that shape your mood and actions.”

melissa.healy@latimes.com

Sent from my iPhone