Posted on

No hooking up, no sex for some coeds

Here is an interesting article about life within the hook-up culture in college over at CNN. It is possible and wise to save sex for marriage. (see below)

“Almost every weekend, there is a tradition called raging at Vanderbilt University.

It’s a recurring, drunken activity that isn’t the proudest moment for student Frannie Boyle. After consuming large quantities of alcohol before a party, her night would sometimes end in making out with a stranger or acquaintance.

Casual hook ups fueled by alcohol may be the norm across college campuses, but Boyle, now a 21-year-old junior at the school, chose to stop. Her reasons to quit hooking up echo the emotional devastation of many college students, particularly girls whose hearts are broken by the hook-up scene.

“I saw it [hooking up] as a way to be recognized and get satisfaction,” said Boyle, shaking her blond ponytail. “I felt so empty then.”

The hook-up culture on campuses may seem more pervasive than ever, especially as media outlets, books and documentaries rush to dissect the subject, but some college women and men are saying no.

Some, like Boyle, experimented with hooking up and quit. Though she is Catholic, she says her reason for disengaging herself from the hook-up culture had more to do with the unhappiness she experienced afterward. Others influenced by religion have abstained from casual physical activity from the moment they set foot on campus.

The idea of rejecting hook-ups may not be as strange as it sounds in a generation surrounded by sex. Pop star Lady Gaga recently announced she was celibate and encouraged others to follow. In Kelly Clarkson’s song “I Don’t Hook Up,” she addresses the dominant hook-up culture: “I do not hook up, up I go slow, so if you want me I don’t come cheap.”

The term “hook up” is ambiguous, usually defined as a no-commitment, physical encounter with a stranger or acquaintance. Hooking up can range from just a make-out session all the way to sex. Other lingo for the no-commitment sexual encounters are “booty calls” or “friends with benefits.”

Various academic studies have cited at least 75 percent of women have engaged in hooking up on campus, and the number is usually higher for men. The activity is most likely precipitated by alcohol, studies show. Boyle’s decision to quit hooking up leaves her in the minority.” (read the rest of this article at CNN)

The view that sex is just a private, consumer based, physical act that can be detached from the rest of the human person with no consequences for the future is a myth that modern neuroscience (and sociology) obliterates. Every parent, student, youth pastor, pastor–well everyone–needs to read “Hooked: New Science On How Casual Sex Is Affecting Our Children” by Joe Mcilhaney and Freda Bush.

Their conclusion? “But now, with the aid of modern neuroscience and a wealth of research, it is evident that humans are the healthiest and happiest when they engage in sex only with the one who is their mate for a lifetime.” I guess the Bible is not as outdated as people think.
Posted on

Is our behavior determined by our DNA?

“There is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive. Environment, particularly childhood experiences, and the prominent role of individual free choices have a profound effect on us. Scientists will discover an increasing level of molecular detail about inherited factors that undergird our personalities, but that should not lead us to overestimate their quantitative contribution. Yes, we have all been dealt a particular set of genetic cards, and the cards will eventually be revealed. But how we play the hand is up to us.”–Dr. Francis Collins (former head of the human genome project)
Posted on

Court Strikes Down Patents on Two Human Genes; Biotech Industry Trembles

Do you own your genes?

In a far-reaching judgment that could have major implications for the biotech industry, a federal judge in Manhattan has struck down patents related to two human genes linked to hereditary breast and ovarian cancers, BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Myriad Genetics held the patents, and women who want to find out if they have a high genetic risk for these cancers have to get a test sold by Myriad, which costs more than $3,000. Plaintiffs in the case had said Myriad’s monopoly on the test, conferred by the gene patents, kept prices high and prevented women from getting a confirmatory test from another laboratory [The New York Times]. In his decision, United States District Court Judge Robert W. Sweet found that the company’s patents were invalid because the genes are “found in nature,” and products of nature can’t be patented. In essence, he agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the genetic code contained in each human being’s cells shouldn’t be private property.

Tuesday’s decision, if upheld, could have wide repercussions for the multi-billion dollar biotech industry, which is built on more than 40,000 gene patents. Already, about 20 percent of the human genes have been patented. The decision, however, is not binding on other federal courts and other judges may or may not abide by it. But it does the set the stage for years of litigation over other gene patents. Myriad Genetics (more)

These are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to bioethics in the 21st century. Are you prepared to engage them? you can be. I’d start here:





and then:



Posted on

Review of What Darwin Got Wrong

Sean McDowell has a short and helpful review of a new book, by committed atheists, rejecting the current Darwinian approach to evolution.

I started reading What Darwin Got Wrong (2010) assuming it was written by two creationists or proponents of intelligent design. To my pleasant surprise, I could not have been more wrong myself! The authors, Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, explicitly describe themselves as “outright, card-carrying, signed-up, dyed-in-the-wool, no-holds-barred atheists” (xiii).

The authors make it clear from the outset that they are not trying to undermine naturalism or even give a boost to creationism or ID. In fact, they probably fear that people like myself will pick up a copy and use it as a critique of naturalism. The main thesis of their book is that “natural selection is irredeemably flawed” (p. 1). They are careful to distinguish between common descent and natural selection, clarifying that they have no problem with the former. But they do consider the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutation as “radically untenable” (p. 44). Natural selection may play a minor role in the development of life, they say, but not possibly the major role assigned to it by evolution supporters. Why?

They note that evolution is believed to have driven the development of (more)