On the challenge of protecting our children III.The Watchtower Society's commentary.

AWAKE! 1985-01-22

Child Molesting—‘Who Would Do a Thing Like That?’

MOST parents would answer this question wrong. When we think of sexual molestation, most of us probably picture a weird stranger who exposes himself to children or lures them away into a car or to some wooded area. Publicity has also been given to groups that lure children away to exploit them for pornography or child prostitution. Such things do happen, but these people are far from the usual type of child molester. So who are the usual child molesters?

Sue was molested by a man who was running a church group. He ran a youth club, and everybody agreed that he was very pleasant. But he sexually abused Sue and other girls. Another young girl wrote to an advice column to tell that her favorite uncle had taken to pulling her onto his lap and fondling her improperly. One man remembers that as a boy he was habitually abused by the grown son of a close family friend. An 11-year-old boy was molested by the aunt that he lived with. A New York woman reports being molested by her grandfather when she was seven years old. A 15-year-old boy was molested by his doctor during a medical examination. For Pam, it was even worse. For many years, her own father molested her. And Mary was molested by two older brothers and an older first cousin.


 In fact, probably less than a third of sexual assaults on children are committed by strangers. Usually the victim knows the assailant. Often the abuser is a relative. Thus, in most cases children are molested by people they know and trust, which makes the problem of protecting them more difficult.

The Molester at Work

Many parents have another misconception. They envision molestation as being violent, with the child fighting and screaming for mercy. This may not be the case at all, at least not in the beginning. At the outset, sexual abuse may be disguised as playful or affectionate contact, and go on from there. The abuser is likely to persuade and pressure the child, using all the built-in authority of an older person. Do you remember what it was like when you were a child and were trained to obey adults even when they told you to do things you did not like, such as go to bed early or eat all your vegetables? Molesters take advantage of this training. One convicted abuser said: “Show me an obedient child, and I’ll show you an easy victim.”

One child was receiving obscene phone calls. When asked why she had not put the phone down, she said she thought it was rude to do that when someone was still talking! A woman of 30 remembers having been approached at the age of 5 by her grandfather. He said to her: “Good girls do this for Grandpa and never tell their mothers.” How many five-year-olds would be able to see through such a deception?

And do you remember how you loved presents and treats as a child? Abusers often use this childish trait to get an abusive relationship started. For example, what would your child do if the school janitor said: “Stay with me for a while in the office after school, and I will give you some money”? or if the baby-sitter said: “I will let you sit up late and watch television, if you do something for me first”?

She was molested by her minister
Sometimes molesters misuse a child’s natural love of secrets. Wasn’t it exciting, when you were young, to have a secret? One little girl had a secret that she kept from her parents. But one day her parents saw her acting in a precocious, sexual manner. When asked where she had learned such a thing, the little girl said: “It’s a secret.” Her father explained that sometimes we should not keep a secret, so the little girl revealed her secret. A 40-year-old man with a family of his own, who was a close family relative, had pushed her down and sexually assaulted her.

Finally, threats may be involved, subtle threats that strike at a child’s sense of security. A grown woman tells of having been abused by her stepfather when she was a child. She says he abused her for four years, starting when she was six. Why did she not tell her mother? “He said that if I ever told anybody about it, the police would come get him and my mother would lose her job. The family would starve and it would all be my fault.”

 Author Gail Sheehy covers many of these points in the following observation: “We forget how grownups seemed omnipotent to us when we ourselves were children.” She adds: “It is very easy for a parent or babysitter to initiate sexual activities under the guise of normal bathing and hygiene inspection. The child gets the message something is wrong only when secrecy is introduced: ‘Don’t tell your mommy that we did that’—and sufficient intimidation can be laid in with a single stroke—‘or she won’t love you anymore.’” Would your child be able to withstand that sort of psychological blackmail?


The Child’s Best Defense

So you see, molesters can be the most unexpected of people and they can use sophisticated and cunning tactics. Child molestation is probably almost as old as history. But as this generation progresses, and more and more people are “lovers of themselves, . . . having no natural affection, . . . without self-control,” the threat is becoming greater. (2 Timothy 3:1-3) However, children do have one very strong defense. What is that? Their parents. These are the adults best able to protect them from other adults who may wish to molest them. Let us see how.

Child Molesting—You Can Protect Your Child

A YOUNG woman who was molested as a girl by her brother and her brother-in-law says: “I was afraid, so I did not tell anyone. For this reason, I would like to warn all parents: ‘Please teach your children not to let anyone in the family, or outside the family, put their hands on them in any wrong way. If anyone tries to, do not be afraid to tell on them.’” She adds: “It can happen to any child at any time!”


In this degenerating world, we must take definite steps to protect our children from sexual molestation. It is not wise to leave things to chance and just hope that nothing will happen.

The First Line of Defense

The first line of defense is to avoid situations that leave our children vulnerable. For example, parents are advised to be careful about using as baby-sitters young adults who seem to prefer being with children rather than with folks their own age. One clinical psychologist reports that two thirds of the molesters he is treating committed the offense while baby-sitting.

Dr. Suzanne M. Sgroi mentions two more situations that have led to trouble: Children doubling up (in beds or rooms) with adults or teenagers, and large family gatherings where the grown-ups get involved  in enjoying themselves and just assume that the older children are taking care of the young ones.

The truth is, the more we can keep our children under our own supervision, the less opportunity molesters will have to get at them. Ann, a mother of three, goes to the extent of not allowing her youngest child, a 14-year-old boy, to wander around the shopping mall—or even to go into public rest rooms—alone. The boy probably finds this very restrictive, but his mother has her reasons. She was molested as a child.


However, parents cannot always keep such a close watch on their children. Working parents may have no choice but to use day-care facilities or to leave their children with relatives or baby-sitters. Children have to go to school, and parents cannot always be with them. Relatives and friends come to visit. And then there are the neighbors! How can we protect our children when they are so vulnerable? Really, there is only one way—

Talk to Your Child About the Danger

Psychologist Debrah Shulman said: “It’s foolish to pretend to children that dangers do not exist. Children are aware of their vulnerability and are naturally concerned about their own safety. It’s part of a parent’s job to give them the tools to deal with danger realistically. If presented honestly and positively such information will not threaten children, it will reassure them.” Yes, we have to talk to them about it.


This is easy to say but not so easy to do, especially since the greatest danger is from friends and relatives. We may already have warned our children against the stranger who wants to lure them into the woods or carry them away in a car. But how can we give them “the tools” to protect themselves from ones they know, respect, and even love?

How Can We Tell Them?

First, we have to bring the subject up. One suggestion is that if ever a scandal is reported in the news, parents could use it as an opportunity to ask their children: “Did anyone ever do anything like that to you?” and then go on to tell them how to act if anyone tries to.

Parents who teach their children about the Bible can use parts of it as a starting point. They can use the story of Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, to explain the boundaries that exist in what one person may do to another. (Genesis 34:1-4) The story of Tamar and Amnon can be used to show that there are things that even close relatives are not permitted to do to each other. (2 Samuel 13:10-16) And we should make sure they understand that if something like that does happen to them, we want to know about it. We will not get angry with them if they tell us.


Mary was molested when she was a little girl, so she made very sure to put her three daughters on guard against molesters. How did she do it? As soon as they were old enough to understand, she told them: “If anyone touches you in the wrong place, tell me and I will not be angry.” How would they know where the wrong places are? Mary says that when they were about three years old she showed them. When she was bathing them or getting them ready for bed, she pointed out the parts of their body that other people should not touch. As they got a little older, she presented situations: “Nobody should touch you there, even if it is a schoolteacher or a policeman. Not even Mummy or Daddy should touch you there. And a doctor should only touch you there if Mummy or Daddy is with you!”Did this work? Mary remembers one occasion when a relative was playing with her six-year-old daughter. The things the relative was doing started to make the little girl feel uncomfortable. What did she do? She just walked away from him. Mary is not sure whether the relative had bad intentions or not. But she is delighted that her daughter was able to walk away from the situation when it started to feel “not right,” or “strange.”

Hence, just as parents warn their children against going off with strangers, playing in a busy street, and putting their hands on electric wires, they should also tell them about avoiding molestation. They should explain the boundaries on their bodies that others—even their own parents—should not transgress. They should clearly state that if something does happen, they want to know about it. And they will not blame the children.

The “What if . . . ?” Game

Sometimes adults will use their greater experience and intelligence to deceive children into joining them in some inappropriate activity, and children may not spot the deception without help. So Linda Tschirhart Sanford, author of the book The Silent Children, suggests a tool that could be used to counter this in advance: the “What if . . . ?” game. From time to time, ask the children what they would do in certain situations: “What if the baby sitter said that you could stay up late watching television if you got in the bathtub with him and played games? What would you tell him?” “What if someone you knew took you for a ride and wanted to put his hands where he should not? What would you do?” “What would you do if an older friend touched you in a way you did not like, or wanted to undress you and play a secret game with you?”


In teaching the child how to answer, parents can show that there are occasions when they can say no to an adult. There are also occasions when they should reveal secrets. If they are trained to say things like “I will just go and ask Mummy first,” they will be able to discourage most potential molesters. If the child learns the right answers in the “What if . . . ?” game, it is gaining some good tools to protect itself. If it gives a wrong answer, well, go back over the question and suggest a different answer.

Give Them the Words

The following experience shows another problem that children face in the matter of molestation: A woman relates that she was abused as a child and tried to tell her mother about it. But she did not have the right words and could not explain what had happened. Her mother thought that someone was just trying to be affectionate and that the little girl had misunderstood the situation and blown it out of proportion.


Because of similar experiences, social workers encourage parents to tell their children the right names for parts of their bodies. Give them the vocabulary to express themselves in case the worst happens.

Alert but Balanced

One of a parent’s worst nightmares is that their child might be sexually molested. However, we need to remember that most adults are not going to molest our children. Most of our relatives love them and would be as concerned as we are to protect them from abuse.


On the other hand, it can happen. And merely hoping that it will not happen is not enough. The Biblical proverb says: “Shrewd is the one that has seen the calamity and proceeds to conceal himself.” (Proverbs 22:3) Hence, it is wise to be cautious, especially in view of the times we live in. If we avoid, to the extent possible, putting our children in situations that leave them vulnerable, if we explain to them the boundaries that even adults are not to cross, and if we teach them how to react in case any adult should try to cross those boundaries, then we are doing a lot to protect our children from the molester.

If the Worst Should Happen

No parent can give a child complete protection against sexual molestation, although taking sensible precautions will enormously reduce the possibility that anything will happen. However, if parents have established good family communication, it may be that children will talk about it in the event that the worst should happen. Sometimes, though, children are so shocked by or ashamed of the experience that they will not discuss it. Hence, parents need to be alert. Here are some signs that researchers say may show that something has happened.

Be suspicious of any changes in the normal routine. In one case, a teacher asked that certain children come to school long before others. Watch for any telling signs in children such as declining grades or extreme anxiety around a specific adult. One woman who was victimized by her brother and her father as a girl said: “I came at the bottom of a class of 42, and nobody tried to find out why.”

Pay attention to physical symptoms, such as headaches, vomiting or loss of appetite, and difficulty in sleeping. Genital complaints, such as soreness, are particularly important. Be aware of precocious sexuality in language, dress, or behavior. Be on the lookout for sudden changes in behavior that might indicate a problem. If a child becomes unusually withdrawn or shows an inclination to avoid one member of the family, a warning bell should sound. We also have to listen for the oblique messages that our children send us. The statement, “I don’t like that math teacher any more” may be the child’s way of trying to broach this difficult subject.

If parents see anything like this in their child, they should try to find out what is wrong. The child has a problem, and it may be a problem of molestation. If so, the child needs help. Unfortunately, many children do not get that help. Molested children have been accused of inventing the incident, although researchers assure us that children rarely, if ever, invent such things. Incest has been covered up so as not to break up the family.

However, if molestation—and especially incest—is discovered to have occurred, two things must be done immediately:

First, the child—and other children too—must be protected from any further abuse. This must be done, whatever the cost. In many cases the accused molester will have to be confronted. But whatever it takes, it is important that the child should feel confident that the molester will never be able to get at her (or him) again.


Second, the child must be given a lot of love and emotional support. Parents must make it very clear that the little victim is not to blame. The crime and anything that happens as a result of it—even if a close relative goes to prison—is not her (or his) fault. But that reassurance will have to be given many times, so that the victim comes to believe it—and to believe that the parents believe it too!

The undeniable logic of design.

Time to hand intitutionalised religion the pink slip?:Pros and cons.

Here be dragons.

Fellow travelers.

Continuing to rethink the unrethinkable II

Theistic universe:Miracles with cause and purpose;Atheistic multiiverse:Miracles with neither cause nor purpose.

The Multiverse: Where Everything Turns Out to Be True, Except Philosophy and Religion

Denyse O'Leary December 9, 2013 5:39 AM

 

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by the multiverse's ready acceptance. David Berlinski observes, "The idea that everything is really true somewhere has been current in every college classroom for at least fifty years."

But as orthodoxy? New Scientist told us in 2009:

Until recently, many were reluctant to accept this idea of the "multiverse", or were even belligerent towards it. However, recent progress in both cosmology and string theory is bringing about a major shift in thinking. Gone is the grudging acceptance or outright loathing of the multiverse. Instead, physicists are starting to look at ways of working with it, and maybe even trying to prove its existence.

Maybe even trying to prove its existence? Yes because, remember, evidence is now superfluous. Methodological naturalism produced the Copernican Principle, which is an axiom. It axiomatically accounts for our universe's apparent fine tuning by postulating -- without the need for evidence -- an infinity of flops. And cosmologists' acceptance makes the multiverse orthodoxy.

 

Hailed as the "world's smartest man," with cameos to his credit on The Simpsons and Star Trek, Stephen Hawking has blessed the multiverse for popular culture. Denouncing philosophy (and religion) as "outdated and irrelevant", he announced that science dispenses with a designer behind nature because the law of gravity explains how the universe "can and will create itself from nothing."

Sometimes his pronouncements are less clear, though their outlines are discernible. Ian Sample, science writer for Britain's Guardian, asked Hawking in 2011, "What is the value in knowing 'Why are we here?'" Hawking replied:

The universe is governed by science. But science tells us that we can't solve the equations, directly in the abstract. We need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those Societies most likely to survive. We assign them a higher value.

Sample had no idea what Hawking meant. But we can discern this much: Philosophy and religion may not matter, but Darwin does.

 

How far has the multiverse penetrated our culture? Tegmark observes, "Parallel universes are now all the rage, cropping up in books, movies and even jokes." Indeed, multiverse models can hardly be invented fast enough, with or without science. Cosmologist Andrei Linde has commented that a scenario that is "very popular among journalists" has remained rather unpopular among scientists. In short, popular science culture needs that scenario.

Multiverse cosmologists look out on a bright future, freed from the demands of evidence. Leonard Susskind writes, "I would bet that at the turn of the 22nd century philosophers and physicists will look nostalgically at the present and recall a golden age in which the narrow provincial 20th century concept of the universe gave way to a bigger better [multiverse] ... of mind-boggling proportions." Physicists Alejandro Jenkins and Gilad Perez say their computer program shows that "universes with different physical laws might still be habitable." And reviewing theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss's Universe From Nothing (2012), science writer Michael Brooks notes that the multiverse puts laws of physics "beyond science -- for now, at least." Before methodological naturalism really sank in, undemonstrable universes, not the laws of physics, were beyond science.

And, as we have by now come to expect, the scheme is undergirded by tinny moralizing. From Max Tegmark: "The price we have to pay is becoming more humble -- which will probably do us good -- but in return we may find ourselves inhabiting a reality grander than our ancestors dreamed of in their wildest dreams."

Multiverse cosmologists are now so culturally secure that they no longer need confidence in their own assertions. Andrei Linde confessed, after offering a defense of multiverse thinking, "One can easily dismiss everything that I just said as a wild speculation," a prospect that does not trouble him much. Leonard Susskind reportedly told Alan Guth, "You know, the most amazing thing is that they pay us for this," and Nobelist David Gross (the fellow who "hates" the Big Bang) has admitted about string theory, "We don't know what we are talking about." But they do know what they are not talking about, and that is enough.

Concluding a defense of the multiverse, Nobelist Steven Weinberg (2011) tells us:

It must be acknowledged that there is a big difference in the degree of confidence we can have in neo-Darwinism and in the multiverse. It is settled, as well as anything in science is ever settled, that the adaptations of living things on Earth have come into being through natural selection acting on random undirected inheritable variations ...

Weinberg has faith in Darwin. Not so much in the multiverse:

Martin Rees said that he was sufficiently confident about the multiverse to bet his dog's life on it, while Andrei Linde said he would bet his own life. As for me, I have just enough confidence about the multiverse to bet the lives of both Andrei Linde and Martin Rees's dog.

So if there were no multiverse, for Weinberg there would still be Darwin. But now, what of those more confident ones, who know that the multiverse is a Sure Thing?

On the challenge of protecting our Children II:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

AWAKE! 1981-02-08

Incest—The Hidden Crime

“IS THERE any help for a person like me?” This sad question came from a woman with a difficult problem—one shared by a surprising number of other women today. After many years, she was still suffering from a childhood experience. She had been a victim of incest. How can her question be answered?

“Incest” is not a pleasant word. Most would rather not discuss it, yet it is increasingly common. If estimates are correct, it is quite likely that some of your personal friends have been victims. It is certainly a problem of which parents should be aware.


Most of us know what incest means—sexual activity between close relatives. It is suspected that a lot of such activity goes on between brothers and sisters, although this is not usually reported. Authorities are particularly concerned when children are abused by adult relatives. Of greatest concern, and probably accounting for most of the reported cases, are instances where children are molested by their fathers or stepfathers.

Is the Problem Really Widespread?

Despite the lack of complete statistics, the answer is clearly, Yes. Susan Brownmiller, in her book Against Our Will, says: “The sexually abused child is statistically more prevalent than the physically abused, or battered child.” Mrs. Lee Preney, a childcare worker, asserts that incest is “more common than rape, and less frequently reported.”

A report in the Seattle Times said: “Look at any 15 girls in your daughter’s classroom the next time you’re there . . . the odds are good that at least one—and possibly two or three—has been a victim of incest.”

Hank Giarretto, a psychologist who works in a sexual-abuse treatment program in prosperous Santa Clara County, California, thinks that incest is “epidemic” in America. In an area with a population of around one million, he saw incest cases rise from 30 in 1971 to more than 500 in 1977. In an interview with the magazine People, he said: “I think we are just beginning to tap the actual prevalence.”


Some estimate that 25 million women in America today suffered incestuous abuse as children! Reports indicate that many other countries are experiencing the same growing problem.

Should We Be Concerned About It?

Many experts have raised this question. For example, Wardell Pomeroy, coauthor  of the original Kinsey reports, was quoted in Time magazine as saying: “It is time to admit that incest need not be a perversion or a symptom of mental illness. Incest between . . . children and adults . . . can sometimes be beneficial.”

Are you a parent? How do you feel about that viewpoint? Would you allow your little boy or girl to have sex relations with an older relative?

If you are a Christian, you know you should be concerned about incest. God’s opinion about it—much more important than any man’s—was stated very clearly to the Israelites: “You people must not come near, any man of you, to any close fleshly relative of his to lay bare nakedness.” The forbidden relationships are specified, including: brother/sister, parent/child, as well as uncle-or-aunt/niece-or-nephew relations.—Leviticus 18:6-18.


The experience of children who have been incestuously abused also shows that we should be concerned.

What Happens to the Child?

In correspondence with the Australian Women’s Weekly, a woman described how childhood incest drove her to several suicide attempts, starting from the age of 10. Others could not have normal sex relationships when they grew up.

Another, one of three sisters molested by their father, wrote: “It has taken me 10 years and a lot of help from my husband to come to terms with it and discuss it freely. It affects everybody differently. My eldest sister thinks sex is the dirtiest thing in the world; my youngest just doesn’t care. She was charged with prostitution at the age of 14 and had a child by the time she was 15 years old.”

Prostitution, drug abuse, committing rape (in the case of boys), alcoholism, rebelliousness and emotional turmoil have all resulted from incest. One young girl could not think of God as her heavenly Father. An incestuous relationship with her natural father had soured her on the whole concept of fatherhood.

Why does incest seem to cause more emotional turmoil than, say, rape? Because the molester is imposing on a very close and important relationship. One girl complained that she felt more like a wife than a daughter and believed that she was there only for her father’s sexual pleasure.


Consider the comment of another victim: “I was terrified to tell anyone what was happening to me. I was so scared to disobey him; after all he was my father, he wouldn’t do anything he wasn’t supposed to . . . As I grew into my teens, things got worse and worse. I understood things better. I felt like I was dirty, cheap and worthless. So many times I considered suicide. And how I hated men! . . . I knew I was only a little girl when it started, but I could not stop feeling that it was all my fault . . . almost worse than the actual molesting is the guilt.”

What About the Perpetrator?

Not only the victim, but the molester, too, can suffer because of incest. Often he feels shame and self-hatred, while all the time becoming more and more involved. A therapist told the Seattle Times: “The problem is that we’re dealing with compulsive behavior. These men have conditioned themselves through repeated sexual daydreaming . . . to respond to young girls.”

One molester said: “I tried stopping it several times, and I told my stepdaughter that I had to stop because of what I was doing to the family.” But he did not stop. Another said his incestuous relationship left him with “permanent emotional scars.”


Besides this, remember that in most lands incest is against the law, punishable by a possible prison sentence. Surely, if all these facts were kept in mind, fewer parents  would allow themselves to fall into incestuous relationships.

Then Why Do They Do It?

Some adults who turn to incest are psychotic. Most are not, however. They may be apparently good family men, business or community leaders, even good churchgoers.

Why do such “ordinary people” commit incest? Loss of control due to alcohol has been involved. Sometimes, a man marries a woman who already has children. As his stepchildren get older, he may be tempted sexually.

Family problems can contribute. Hank Giarretto says: “Usually it’s a man losing his job or going through a low-ebb period in his life. He and his wife become alienated. The father reaches out to his daughter, looking for closeness. She is open to him, loves him, thinks he’s great. The first overtures are not sexual.”

There may be additional causes. One incest victim told how pornographic literature was always present in the house. Giarretto adds: “It’s the sexual climate of our society which helps create the problem. We teach our girls to be Lolitas and sexual provocateurs from the time they’re 2.”


An adult committing incest with a child betrays selfishness. He shows no concern at all for the welfare of the child. Yet, in a world that encourages us to ‘do our own thing’ and promotes such perversions as child pornography, is it surprising that cases of incest are on the increase?

Can It Be Prevented?

It surely can, but it means that individuals must make a determined mental stand against the worsening moral climate of this world. For this, we can get no better advice than that found in the Bible. The apostle Paul tells us: “Quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over.” (Rom. 12:2) To do this, we must avoid unclean books and entertainment and block from our minds the unclean influences to which we are constantly exposed. Thus, we avoid conditioning ourselves to wrong behavior.

One incest victim recommended teaching children at an early age that certain parts of their bodies are not for others to play with. This can be done in a loving way, perhaps using the story of Dinah, in the publication My Book of Bible Stories. * Then, if anything resembling molestation should occur, the child can immediately tell mother or father. Remember, sexual molestation does not have to be intercourse. Fondling, “touching,” unwarranted intimacy or any sexual playing can cause great damage in later life.


Deep parental love is a true safeguard. Paul said: “Love . . . does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests.” (1 Cor. 13:4, 5) This unselfish love will surely prevent parents from allowing fleshly weaknesses to nudge them to do wrong acts toward their offspring. It will also help to prevent another problem. Sometimes, as children start to become young men or women, their parents, afraid of falling into incestuous relationships, become cold and distant. Of course, this, too, is harmful to the growing child.

Handling the Problem

Handling incest has not proved easy. It is a secret crime. Families often try to keep it hidden. Mothers who know that “something is going on” may turn a blind eye, afraid of disrupting the family. Children who report their parents may come under strong pressure to withdraw the complaint. Yet, in the experience of many specialists, children rarely lie about incest.

Some feel that prison is not always the  answer for the molester. Hence, counseling centers have been set up where these families can be treated as a whole. Explaining what he thinks is very important in such treatment, Hank Giarretto says: “[The father] must face the daughter and accept full responsibility for whatever happened.” This may be difficult for the father to do; but it is a way he can try to undo some of the harm that has been done to the child.


Outsiders can help too. Many victims have testified how, through patient, considerate and selfless care, they were assisted to overcome the emotional confusion and start planning for the future. The scars may never completely disappear; but with persistence, they will at least recede into the background.

Another Source of Help

What, then, about the incest victim whose question appears at the beginning of this article? She was molested by her grandfather from the age of six until nine. She tried immorality, drugs and psychiatrists, but found in these no relief from her unhappiness.

Happily, there is help for such a person. However confused and “down” we may be, there is One who is “raising up the lowly one from the very dust,” and we can get to know him by means of the Bible. (Ps. 113:7) He can help even in the deepest depression, for he is the “Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort.” (2 Cor. 1:3) It takes much prayer, study and discussion with mature people to replace the depressing, guilt-ridden thoughts in the mind with upbuilding ones. But it can be done. The following experience may help to demonstrate this.

A woman said that she was abused by her natural father from a very early age, and then by her stepfather. She sank into immorality, drug abuse and finally had an illegitimate child. But she says: “There is a way out of incest, child-abuse, statutory rape, drugs and homosexuality. You may feel as though you can’t live through these things with a completely sane mind, but you can if you have hope of something better to live for. I have that hope . . . I never fought back as a child. I only wish I had, but I was afraid, afraid no one would take care of me or want me. I was wrong, very wrong! Jehovah cares . . . and the elders at the local Kingdom Hall [of Jehovah’s Witnesses] care too.”


Whatever our past history, any of us can be “washed clean,” and “sanctified” from the standpoint of God. (1 Cor. 6:11) The Bible explains how. By the power of his Word and spirit, God can also remove our guilt feelings and provide escape even from emotional confusion. He can help us to live a satisfying life now, and give us confidence that, one day soon, we will live in a world where such things as incest will never happen again.

Rethinking hell some more.

Modern medicine has just promoted the golden rule to platinum.

By David Robson
26 November 2015

You’d have thought Sandi Mann was offering people a slap in the face – not a steaming cup of coffee. She’d been visiting her local cafe with her children, where they often enjoyed a cheap and cheerful breakfast as a treat before school. The youngest didn’t want the coffee that came with his toast, so she thought she might as well take it round and see if the other customers would like a free treat instead.
What could possibly go wrong? “I thought they’d be delighted – that everything would be warm and cuddly,” she says today. “Instead, I just got stares of bewilderment. There was this suspicion: Had I spat on it? Is it poisoned?” She ended up feeling that she had somehow acted wrongly – when all she wanted to do was offer a free gift.
It wasn’t meant to be like this. Mann, a psychologist at the University of Central Lancashire, had just embarked on a new project to explore the phenomenon of “paying it forward” – a popular philosophy of being generous to a stranger, in the hope they will pass on the kindness to someone else. “The idea is to create a chain – a domino effect,” Mann explains.Mann’s idea was to try it herself for a couple of weeks and observe the way people react. After all, most people might have the intention of being a little bit kinder, yet we feel that we are unable to muster up the willpower. So why is it so difficult to both give, and accept, kindness? And would it really pay off in the real world – or are we just too cynical in today’s society? Mann recorded the pleasures, and embarrassments, of that journey in her recent book – Paying It Forward : How One Cup of Coffee Could Change the World. (In the spirit of the book’s contents, Mann’s royalties from the book go to a charity for patients with muscular dystrophy.)
Like many people, Mann’s interest in everyday kindness started with a heart-warming post on her Facebook feed. Her American friend Debbie had been visiting a drive-through coffee shop only to find that the person ahead had already settled her bill. “She was so chuffed – it made her day,” says Mann. Straight away, she was intrigued by the philosophy’s potential – the idea that a single act of kindness could “have a knock-on effect, like the butterfly effect”, sending ripples of goodwill through the world.
As Mann started reading up on the subject, she found that the principle has a deep history. In Italy, wealthier Neapolitans have long embraced the tradition of buying a “caffe sospeso” in addition to their own, for someone who is less able to pay for the luxury. Benjamin Franklin is one of the most famous proponents of the idea. While lending some money to a friend, he explained: “I do not pretend to give such a deed; I only lend it to you; when you meet with another honest man in similar distress, you must pay me by lending this sum to him,” he wrote. “This is a trick of mine for doing a deal of good with a little money.”Today, “paying it forward” has become a popular and far-reaching movement – it has even spawned a novel and film. Google the term, and you will read heart-warming stories of grandiose acts of goodwill – like the generous philanthropists anonymously calling hospitals to pay for expensive operations, without expecting so much as a simple thank you.
But often it is the smaller deeds that are most touching. Mann points to the case of Josh Brown, a 12-year-old who found a stranger’s lost phone on a train. The owner was so pleased, she offered him a small reward for the trouble. Instead, he sent a note attached to the returned phone: “Don’t worry about the money, just do something nice for someone else.”These everyday altruists may not get an immediate payback (besides the “giver’s glow”), but people like Brown tend to reap their rewards in terms of general life satisfaction. Michael Norton at Harvard Business School has offered some of the most convincing evidence, repeatedly finding that people who spend a bigger proportion of their income on others tend to be far happier, in the long run, than those spending it on themselves.
Crucially, this is not just the result of the comfortable Western lifestyle: Norton has tested the concept with data from more than 130 countries, from the US to Uganda. “Across all countries – rich or poor, and in every continent – people who gave more tended to be happier people,” he says. For this reason, he thinks the joy of giving appears to be a “psychological universal” – a trait that lies at the core of human nature, independent of your culture.
Taking time to help others may even protect you from disease, Mann says. Over a 30-year study, women who volunteered for a charity were 16% less likely to suffer a major illness during that period – perhaps because it lowers stress levels, which may also, in turn, boost the immune system.There are many possible reasons why acting selflessly may soothe the body and mind in these ways. Giving to others can increase your social connection (who isn’t grateful after they’ve received a nice present) and your sense of purpose in life; you feel like you’ve made a difference, and there is a point in getting out of bed in the morning. Given that humans are social animals, this may be part of our evolved nature, says Norton. In the same way that we hunger for fat or sugar – we may all nurture a deep desire to help other people, he says.
Helper’s high
At least, that’s the theory – yet Mann found that the “helper’s high” was often difficult to earn. Having read the research, she had decided to spend two weeks trying simple, generous acts. “I was very determined that it shouldn’t cost lots of money,” she explains. “So I set myself the challenge that it had to cost less than a pound.”
Her first task should have been simple enough. The setting was familiar – her local coffee shop – and she was accompanied by her (“cringing”) children. All she wanted to do was to give away her seven-year-old’s unwanted cup of coffee. Yet as she walked among the tables, she was just met with suspicion rather than gratitude. “I felt like saying ‘I’m only trying to do something nice.’”
It was only once she framed the act differently, so that it seemed more logical, and less altruistic, that their attitudes changed. “Suddenly it was a different story altogether – it made perfect sense that my kid won’t drink coffee.” They still refused, but “the suspicion vanished, and there were smiles, and thanks”. Eventually it was accepted by a lady named Rochel, who subsequently found an opportunity later in the week to treat someone else.That initial mistrust was a common theme for each of the following 13 days – in which she tried to offer strangers an umbrella on a rainy day, pay for someone’s parking ticket, and let fellow shoppers jump ahead of her in checkout queues. “Suspicion was the strongest reaction throughout,” she says. Each time, it was only when she offered a rational explanation – such as the fact she was waiting for someone at the checkout – that people would accept her offers. Looking back, Mann now explains it as “stranger danger”. “We’re brought up to expect strangers to put one over us,” she says.Yet there were also moments when she genuinely touched people’s lives. “One man accepted the chocolates, and told me that it’s a great thing spreading love instead of hate,” says Mann. “When you know you’ve given someone’s mood a lift and made a difference – there’s nothing like it.” She even earned a good friend from the experience – she’s still regularly in touch with Rochel, the woman who accepted her coffee on that first day.
If anything, the occasional hostility has only made Mann more determined to persevere. She points to research showing that people have become individualistic over the last few decades, and score about 40% lower on tests of empathy than those brought up in the 1970s. Perhaps we’re just less used to being kind, and receiving kindness in return.
“It’s a sad society if that’s what we’ve become,” she says. “There’s so much hate, negativity, and suspicion, and with everyone’s individualism, we feel like we’re all fighting just for ourselves, but we need to counteract this and start a kindness movement. It sounds cheesy, but I think we need it.”Critics of the “paying it forward” movement may balk at its artificiality; they may even see it as somewhat coercive, guilt-tripping others into acts of charity they may resent. They may also point to evidence that goodwill does not spread quite as quickly as its proponents would like to believe. Norton’s own research, for instance, has found that spite and greed are far more likely to ripple through a population than generosity. “If someone is stingy, we are much more likely to pay forward that negative behaviour to next person,” he explains.Yet you could also argue that this is only one more reason why we need a bit more kindness in the world – to neutralise those bad apples. What’s more, even though these random acts of kindness may seem artificial to start with, there is some evidence that they can permanently change you for the better – so that kindness becomes your norm. “You can cultivate habits of virtue,” says David Rand at Yale University, who has found that subjects encouraged to perform good deeds tend to be kinder in subsequent tasks, a kind of “psychological spillover”. Indeed, he thinks that even the most astonishing acts of altruism – such as the heroism during the recent Paris shootings – all grew from tiny seeds of deliberate goodwill that eventually grew into an automatic desire to help others.
Mann, for one, is convinced that we can all change for the better. As a clinical psychologist, she has even started advising people with depression to try and incorporate small acts of generosity or kindness into their therapy. “Depressed people say they have a lack of meaning in life, and that they don’t feel valuable,” says Mann. She emphasises that it isn’t a “cure” – their other therapy is still very important. “But it gives a way to contribute back to society – and that makes them feel good, like they are something useful.”If you are inspired to give it a go, she suggests you should develop a thick skin. “It takes some courage and guts,” she says. For this reason, she would advise setting the bar low at the beginning. “I wouldn’t recommend standing in the street giving [out] free chocolates – start with something in your comfort zone, maybe just smiling at someone in the street, or talking nicely to shop assistants.” Simply complimenting people she encountered turned out to be one of the easiest, and most warmly received, acts of kindness.
Ultimately, she hopes that her book will help remind us all that sometimes being kind can be a reward in and of itself. “That’s the view I’d like to change; that there doesn’t always have to be ulterior motive. You can be kind just for the sake of being nice.”
BBC

Darwinists try to shield a treasured icon.

The Recapitulation Myth
Jonathan M. June 29, 2010 12:06 PM


Casey Luskin recently posted two blogs showing that textbooks still misuse Haeckel's long-discredited embryo drawings when attempting to provide evidence for Darwinian evolution (see here and here). Luskin provided ample documentation to demonstrate that these drawings are still printed in some recent textbooks.

Over at The Panda's Thumb blog, apologists for Darwinian theory have defended (see here and here) Ernst Haeckel from the charge of fraud and have argued, albeit unconvincingly, that, in principle, the concept of recapitulation is a valid one.

According to Nick Matzke:
Haeckel didn't ignore the differences in embryos in the earliest period just after fertilization (differences which are visually significant but mostly fairly trivial, due to the different amounts of yolk in different vertebrate eggs).
Apparently Matzke missed some of the authorities cited by Luskin, which contradict Matzke's claims. All the necessary refutations of Matzke can be found in Luskin's original posts:

I. Post 1: Contrary to Matzke's claims, authorities acknowledge that Haeckel did "ignore the differences in embryos":

1. Stephen Jay Gould: "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases -- in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent -- simply copied the same figure over and over again." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Abscheulich! (Atrocious!)," Natural History, Mar. 2000, at 42, 44--45.]

2. Michael Richardson: "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology." [Elizabeth Pennisi, "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," 277 Science 1435, 1435 (1997).]

3. Richardson et al. 1997: "His drawings are also highly inaccurate, exaggerating the similarities among embryos, while failing to show the differences" [Michael K. Richardson et al., "There is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates: Implications for Current Theories of Evolution and Development," 196 Anatomy and Embryology, 91, 92--104 (1997).]

II. Post 2: The differences between vertebrate embryos at their earliest stages are not said to be, as Matzke puts it, "fairly trivial, due to the different amounts of yolk in different vertebrate eggs":

1. Collazo (2000): "Recent workers have shown that early development can vary quite extensively, even within closely related species, such as sea urchins, amphibians, and vertebrates in general. By early development, I refer to those stages from fertilization through neurolation (gastrulation for such taxa as sea urchins, which do not undergo neurulation). Elinson (1987) has shown how such early stages as initial cleavages and gastrula can vary quite extensively across vertebrates." [Andres Collazo, "Developmental Variation, Homology, and the Pharyngula Stage," 49 Systematic Biology 3, 9 (2000)]

2. Richardson et al: "...it is preceded by variation at earlier stages, including gastrulation and neurulation." [Michael K. Richardson et al., "There is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates: Implications for Current Theories of Evolution and Development," 196 Anatomy and Embryology, 91, 105 (1997)]

3. Later in embryo development, the differences at the supposedly conserved "pharyngular" stage are even greater. Richardson also writes, "We find that embryos at the tailbud stage -- thought to correspond to a conserved stage -- show variations in form due to allometry, heterochrony, and differences in body plan and somite number ... Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage ... The wide variation in morphology among vertebrate embryos is difficult to reconcile with the idea of a phylogenetically conserved tailbud stage. ... Our survey, however, does not support the second claim, and instead reveals considerable variability -- and evolutionary lability -- of the tailbud stage, the purported phylotypic stage of vertebrates."

According to these authorities, it sure sounds like among early embryos there are more than "mostly fairly trivial" differences "due to the different amounts of yolk in different vertebrate eggs."

Recapitulating Recapitulation
While Matzke had the decency not to defend recapitulation theory, blogger Matt Young also responded. His approach, quite incredibly, was not to challenge Luskin's discussion of textbooks, but rather to defend a modified version of Haeckel's long-discredited ideas about recapitulation!

My colleague Paul Strode wrote a very clear and concise explanation of Ernst Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" law for our book Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails). In Chapter 11, Strode explains that Haeckel was wrong in thinking that embryos resemble the ancestral adult forms; rather, early embryos resemble the embryos of ancestral forms. In other words, Haeckel was on to something, but he didn't get it quite right. Strode explains further, "Recapitulation nevertheless provides helpful insight into evolutionary relationships and ancestry," and argues that von Baer's law is closer to the truth.
The base principle behind any variation of "recapitulation" is that higher taxa evolved by the addition of developmental stages to the end of the morphogenesis of lower taxa. Karl Ernst von Baer demonstrated that development is a process of progressive specialization towards the adult form. While early-stage embryos may well superficially resemble one another, this is because of their unspecialized form. The embryos progressively diverge as they become specialized. For example, von Baer could recognize, in the development of a chick, a stage at which it could be identified as a vertebrate, a later stage at which it could be identified as a bird, etc. Only later could it be identified as a particular type of bird. While there is a marked similarity among early vertebrate embryos, they are still distinctively vertebrate. They do not pass through a form at which it resembles an invertebrate.

I would ask the bloggers at Panda's Thumb to point to a single case in which evolutionary modifications of ontogeny have taken the form of addition of a new terminal phase to the previously terminal phase during ontogeny. It is all of the stages of ontogeny that are modified during the process of evolution. Indeed, many structures arise early in the development of higher taxa that are missing from the embryos of lower taxa. One example would be the placenta in mammals.

The matter becomes still more problematic when one considers instances of species that have similarities of adult form but radically differ in early forms. In order to account for this, one needs to postulate that the forms evolved in a convergent fashion. Then there are the tissues that arise in the opposite order from the sequence in which they are presumed to have evolved, one example being the development of teeth prior to the tongue (whereas the tongue is presumed to have evolved first).

As Jonathan Wells observes in Icons of Evolution:

If the implications of Darwin's theory for early vertebrate development were true, we would expect these five classes [bony fish, amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal] to be most similar as fertilized eggs; slight differences would appear during cleavage, and the classes would diverge even more during gastrulation. What we actually observe, however, is that the eggs of the five classes start out noticeably different from each other; the cleavage patterns in four of the five classes show some general similarities, but the pattern in mammals is radically different. In the gastrulation stage, a fish is very different from an amphibian, and both are very different from reptiles, birds, and mammals, which are somewhat similar to each other. Whatever pattern can be discerned here, it is certainly not a pattern in which the earliest stages are the most similar and later stages are more different.

Sons of God by design.

Darwinism Vs. the real world. XXXIV

Central Command: The Brain's Role in Maintaining Balance
Howard Glicksman 

Editor's note: Physicians have a special place among the thinkers who have elaborated the argument for intelligent design. Perhaps that's because, more than evolutionary biologists, they are familiar with the challenges of maintaining a functioning complex system, the human body. With that in mind, Evolution News is delighted to offer this series, "The Designed Body." For the complete series, see here. Dr. Glicksman practices palliative medicine for a hospice organization.

The brain is a very remarkable and versatile organ. It makes us conscious of our surroundings, controls our breathing and cardiovascular system, lets us swallow, controls our movements, and allows us to manipulate things. It also provides homeostasis of the body's internal environment by controlling such things as appetite, thirst, fluid balance, and core temperature.

The brain has several interconnected regions for emotions like fear, anger, love, and pleasure. It also has regions for higher functions such as thought, memory, language, calculation, learning, reasoning, problem solving, and judgment. Scientists know that these functions are accomplished by billions of nerve cells interacting with each other through chemical means. But knowing that, for example, the visual cortex receives millions of impulses from light entering the eyes, which are split up, overlapping, turned around, and upside down, does not explain how we can see. The same applies for everything else we experience. What within us takes these nerve impulses and actually does the seeing, the hearing, the feeling, the moving, and the thinking?

Using our brain to try to figure out how our brain works is a mystery because, as Marcel Gabriel said, "a mystery is a problem that encroaches upon itself because the questioner becomes the object of the question." Neuroscience tells us that when the mind decides it wants to do something, it sets off a chain of brain-controlled neural events. Clinical experience teaches that for our earliest ancestors to have survived within the laws of nature, they would have had to have been able to perform well-coordinated movements to achieve these goal-directed activities. How does the brain do it?

To appreciate how your muscles work, now would be a good time to test them. Slowly move your eyes and eyelids, mouth and jaw, then your neck, all the joints of your upper and lower extremities, and then your back, in every possible direction. Then go back and try it again, except this time go as fast as you can and see which parts of the body you can move the fastest and with the most precision and control.

You probably noticed that your eyes and eyelids, mouth and jaw moved very quickly with precision and control. Your fingers moved much faster, and with more precision and control, than your toes, your wrists more than your ankles, your elbows more than your knees, your shoulders more than your hips, and your neck more than your upper and lower back.

Each skeletal muscle consists of numerous muscle fibers. When stimulated by a motor neuron, they contract and the bones to which they are attached move toward each other. The muscle fibers controlled by a given motor neuron is called a motor unit. The motor units of different muscles contain different numbers of muscle fibers in relation to their function. For the coarse strong movements of the back, the legs and the arms, there are usually hundreds to several thousand muscle fibers per motor unit. In contrast, for the fine and precise movements of the eyes and the fingers, there are as few as five to ten muscle fibers per motor unit. In addition, compared to the muscles of the back, the legs, and the arms, the muscles of the fingers and the eyes usually have many more muscle spindles to provide the central nervous system with more information on muscle length and the rate of change. This helps them perform intricate movements.

Since muscles only work by contraction, a given muscle can only move the eyeball or the bones of a joint in one direction. To move them back requires a complementary muscle which must also stay relaxed to allow the given muscle to do its job in the first place, and vice versa. For example, when the lateral rectus of the right eye contracts, the eye looks to the right. But to move it back to the left requires it's complementary muscle, the medial rectus, to contract. But the medial rectus must have stayed relaxed to allow the lateral rectus to have done its job in the first place, and vice versa. Similarly, the biceps contracts to flex the elbow, but the only way to straighten the elbow out again is for the triceps to contract. And the tricep must have remained totally relaxed for the biceps to do its job in the first place, and vice versa.

The main lesson to learn here is that to perform a well coordinated action, it is not only important for a given muscle to contract, but also that its counterpart relax. The muscle spindles within both muscles monitor the changing of each muscle's length and the joint angle. In this way, they notify the brain of what is happening and verify that the correct actions are taking place. Without nervous control of these complementary muscles, there would be a continuous tug of war that would make maintaining the body's position and performing well-coordinated, goal-directed actions impossible.

The regions of the brain responsible for the initiation and refinement of purposeful movement are primarily the motor areas of the cerebral cortex, the basal ganglia, and the cerebellum.

The motor cortex on one side of the brain controls the movement of the opposite side of the body. Messages from the motor cortex travel down the spinal cord to the motor neurons, telling them what to do. The motor cortex also sends signals to the basal ganglia and the cerebellum to inform them of what is happening. The motor cortex does not make decisions within a vacuum. It analyzes sensory input sent to it from other areas of the brain, which tell it about things like vision, touch, vibration, pressure, temperature, pain, balance, and the position and movements of the limbs. It also receives information from the basal ganglia and the cerebellum. It is this ongoing feedback from throughout the nervous system that allows the motor cortex to make adjustments in the force needed to achieve certain voluntary actions. Clinical experience shows that injuries and malfunction of the motor cortex on one side of the brain results in weakness and clumsiness of the muscles on the opposite side of the body.

The basal ganglia consist of several nerve-connecting centers that lie deep within the brain, just below the cerebral hemispheres. Due to their location, the basal ganglia have not been easily accessible to investigation, so our understanding of their function is somewhat limited. However, clinical experience from disturbances associated with injury to the basal ganglia indicates that they play a vital role in the body's goal-directed activities. The basal ganglia are connected with neural circuits that involve both sensory and motor impulses that give feedback to both the sensory and motor regions of the cerebral cortex. The messages from the basal ganglia can either turn on (excite) or turn off (inhibit) the neurons they contact. It is thought that the basal ganglia are responsible for the processing and integration of sensory data that is used to regulate motor function. It appears that the basal ganglia are involved in some basic movement programs that are initiated by the cerebral cortex and acted upon by other higher centers as goal-directed activities take place. Clinical experience shows that diseases of the basal ganglia usually cause a constellation of symptoms and signs known as movement disorders, of which Parkinson's Disease is the most common. This condition causes muscle rigidity, slow movements, and often a pill-rolling tremor at rest. All of these progress to weakness and marked debility over time.

The cerebellum (little brain), which lies under the occipital lobes and behind the brainstem, receives sensory information from the muscle spindles, Golgi tendon organs, and the receptors of the skin and joints. This means the cerebellum is aware of the status of the muscles and joints as they perform activities. The cerebellum also receives sensory data from the vestibular regions of the brainstem, so it's involved in balance as well. The cerebral cortex informs the cerebellum of what actions are being planned, which allows it to have a moment-to-moment knowledge of all of the activity within the neuromuscular system. The cerebellum analyzes and integrates all of this sensory data so that it can support and modify the messages being sent to the muscles by the motor cortex. The cerebellum is therefore able to make moment-to-moment adjustments to allow coordinated voluntary actions and maintain balance, posture, and position. Injuries or degeneration of the cerebellum can result in dizziness, imbalance, and loss of muscle control, causing clumsiness, an intention tremor, and slurred speech.


Clearly, for our earliest ancestors to have lived long enough to reproduce required them to not only have this irreducibly complex neuromuscular system, but also have a natural survival capacity to react fast enough and know what to do to survive. Evolutionary biologists believe that somehow or other chance and the laws of nature alone brought about this incredible masterpiece of precision that allows us to "live and move and have our being." All human experience says otherwise.

The real science stopper etc.

Intelligent Design and the Computer Analogy
David Klinghoffer

Imagine if computer science allowed researchers to consider the physical components of computers but not the "ideas" that drive them, imparted by their designers. Douglas Axe, author of Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed, poses that instructive question in a brief video conversation.

Most of evolutionary biology is limited by just such a stricture: consider the physical aspect of living creatures without probing the ideas -- the purposeful, immaterial design -- that we embody in physical form. In biology, you may not weigh the evidence for design, otherwise you're damned as a creationist!

This isn't to say people or other animals are computers, or machines. We're much more, which makes the stricture against intelligent design all the more perverse.

Still, the computer analogy is helpful. A couple of nights ago my family and I were watching the 2015 biopic Steve Jobs, and I was struck by a line delivered at the end. Jobs, co-founder of Apple, is confronted by his daughter over a particular and hurtful moral failing of his that has been revealed to her. She's furious and demands to know why he did what he did. Reaching for his lifetime experience in designing computers, in which he enjoyed both success and failure, he answers, "I'm poorly made."

It's a powerful, poignant scene, and what an interesting answer. Doesn't every parent dread the moment when our children realize how "poorly made" we are? Jobs wasn't speaking in a physical sense, of course, but rather a spiritual one. He was a brilliant but difficult and egotistic person.

Our bodies are wonderfully designed but all too transient and easily abused. So too, in their different way, are our spirits -- capable of soaring to sublime heights, but also congenitally flawed and frail. What joins body and soul is the mysterious design.

The film describes the agonies that went into the design of Apple computers -- the physical design and the software, but focuses -- this is where the drama lies, obviously -- on the intentions of their creators, mainly Jobs and Steve Wozniak. Now imagine if the narrative were totally reworked with an exclusive focus on Apple computers as a series of physical artifacts of increasing sophistication, arising spontaneously, as if neither the design nor the designers existed.


Crazy! The story would be flat, boring -- and false. Yet this in a nutshell is the field of evolutionary biology.