Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

Subscribe Now! Open envelope icon with @ symbol.
White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Helping you think, speak, and act in Christ.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Helping you think, speak, and act in Christ. delivered direct to your Inbox!

Line-art icon representing RP article category
Kids
Line-art icon representing RP article category
Magazine
Line-art icon representing RP article category
Articles
Line-art icon representing RP article category
Book Reviews
Line-art icon representing RP article category
Movie Reviews
Line-art icon representing RP article category
Daily devotional

More of Reformed Perspective!

Humor

Simply and truly

There once was a man whose parents had given him the highly unusual name of “Amazing” when he was born. They gave him the name hoping that he would aspire to it and achieve great things.

But as far as most people were concerned, Amazing never seemed to do anything to live up to his name. He never even got far from where he was born. He worked in the family business, and had some limited – one might even say quite normal or ordinary – success and married his high school sweetheart.

While she thought him quite extraordinary, no one else did, and his name left him as the unfortunate butt of countless jokes. These jokes so bothered him that he told his wife that when he died he didn’t even want his name put on his tombstone; maybe then the jokes would stop.

Well, when Amazing did finally die, his wife honored his request. But she also wanted to have people finally understand how extraordinary her husband had been. So in place of his name she had this inscription placed on the tombstone: “Here lies a man who was loving and faithful to his wife for 50 years.”

And now, whenever people walk by, they point and say, “Well, isn’t that Amazing!"

Source: A joke passed along by my father-in-law

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

To appear before the Lord

A young lawyer had a dream. He found himself one morning before a judge at court in a T-shirt and crumpled shorts. The judge asked him how he came to ...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Media bias

Don’t watch the news, read it!

This first appeared in Reformed Perspective in 2000, and yet the thesis of this article is just as relevant for today's Internet Age, as entertainme...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Christian education

Rating books for the school library

Having just reviewed Escape From the Killing Fields (by Nancy Moyer) for the senior section of our Christian School Library, I thought it would be a g...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Transgenderism

You think feelings can redefine reality? What if I told you I feel like they don’t?
Red heart icon with + sign.
Transgenderism

A is A…except when it wants to be S?

The transsexual debate and the death of logic “Hi A. It is A, isn’t it? I hardly recognized you there. It’s B. Remember me? How are you doing?” “I’m fine. Well I’m … well it’s just … I’m …” “What is it A? Is something the matter? You don’t look quite yourself.” “Look, B. There’s something I need you to know. I’m no longer known as A.” “What do you mean you’re no longer known as A, A?” “I mean I no longer identify as A. In fact, from now on I’d like you to call me S.” “S?” “Yes. S.” “I’m afraid you’ve lost me.” “Look, it’s quite simple. You’ve always known me as A, and all my life everyone told me I was A. But recently I started to question whether that’s really who I am. And the more I questioned it, the more I realized I was just the victim of social conditioning and prejudice. To put it bluntly, I’ve been brainwashed into thinking that I’m A.” “Social conditioning? Brainwashing? But A, you are A. How could you be anything else? Remember the first rule of logic: A = A and so A can’t = non-A.” “Well I simply don’t agree. In fact I believe that’s nothing but an outdated social construct.” “Social construct? But it’s an obvious truth. And it’s true for all times and all places.” “There’s nothing obvious about it whatsoever, and frankly I’m amazed that anyone living in our post-modern culture could still think it is.” “Ah, I thought as much. You’ve been listening to the post-modernists haven’t you? Well frankly I don’t much care what they say about it. It’s self-evidently true that A = A and there’s an end to it.” Do feelings make the man? “You know, B, I had always thought of you as a fairly open-minded letter. But I’m beginning to detect a quite shocking level of intolerance in you. Listen. Maybe this will persuade you. All my life I’ve had this nagging suspicion that I might be different. I’ve never much liked the way I look. That silly pointy bit at the top and that even sillier horizontal bar in the middle. And that’s just the capital “me.” Don’t get me started on the little “me”! But I’ve always admired S. Beautiful curvy letter is S. Well thankfully we’ve moved on from outmoded stereotypes that would have meant that I stayed an S trapped inside an A’s body, and I can now be any letter I want.” If gender, why not species? “But you can’t be an S. Surely you can see that?” “You know, I don’t think I’ve ever come across such a shocking level of bigotry. Why can’t I be another letter entirely, if I want to? Who are you to say what I can and can’t be?” “Why stop at a letter then? Maybe you could identify as a number. I could call you 1. Or 19 if you like. Or maybe even a duck.” “Adding sarcasm to hate speech doesn’t make it any less hateful.” “Hate speech? I said nothing hateful. But A, do you not see what will happen all if you insist on calling yourself S?” “Such as?” You already have a role to fill “Well, I don’t know how we’d get along without an A. I mean, imagine if we tried driving to Alberta without you.” “What do you mean?” “Ever tried driving to Slberts? And what about that fellow who got caught up in the tree after trying to topple his father from the throne. Now what was his name?” “Absalom?” “No. Sbsslom I think it was. Not to mention what we’ll do with the poor old SSrdvsrk. Can’t you see how ridiculous it all is?” “Well I’m not going to stand here all day being lectured by someone who is clearly a Hater and a Transletterphobe.” “You mean ‘someone who is clesrly s Hster snd s Trsnsletterphobe’? You see, all you’ve succeeded in doing by refusing to abide by the simple truth that you are A and that you cannot therefore = non-A is to sow chaos and confusion. Imagine what will happen if T wants to become C, or Y wants to become X.” “As it happens, Y is already well on her way to becoming X thank you very much. She’s a chromosome, you see. She used to be male but now identifies as X. And as for X, he’s sometimes identifying as Y. You have a problem with that?” “Well yes, actually. It’s just a clear denial of objective reality.” “Objective reality? Hah! What you need to realize is that every letter has the right to identify as whichever letter they want, and every other letter ought to respect their feelings.” Why should your feelings win? “Hmm! Fair enough. You win. I will no longer identify you as A.” “Good. Thank you.” “Instead, I shall now identify you as H.” “H? But I just told you I identify you as S, didn’t I.” “Yes you did, but your basis for doing so was based firstly on a denial of objective reality, and then on making subjective opinions and feelings your standard. And, I might add, you said we all have to respect that. Well okay, in my subjective opinion, I no longer identify you as A, or indeed as S, but as H. Are you prepared to respect that?” “But I’m S and you have no right to call me H.” “No right? So let me get this straight. You decree that there is no such thing as objective reality (A = A) and that your feelings are king. Then you insist that I accept your definition as truth and call me a hater, a bigot and a phobe if I don’t. So what you have done is to use your subjective feelings to create your own new ‘objective reality’ and insist that I accept it. Well sorry, I refuse. Two can play at that game and I say you’re an H! Now you’re not going to be a Transletterphobe, a bigot, and a hater and deny me my rights are you? Or is subjectivism taken to its logical conclusion as hard for you to bear as it is for me?” Postscript After this exchange the letter B was hauled off for tolerance training where he is learning that the right to define objective truth is the sole preserve of the Cultural Marxists who denied it in the first place. Rob Slane is the author of "A Christian & an Unbeliever Discuss: Life, the Universe & Everything" which is available at Amazon.ca here and Amazon.com here....

Red heart icon with + sign.
People we should know

A Rare Principled Politician: Ron Paul

The practice of politics notoriously requires compromise. Every politician must bend at some point in order to be electable. Many politicians are very malleable and change their views with the currents of popular opinion. This contributes to their continuing electoral success. Those who won’t go with the flow have a harder time succeeding and will get weeded out over time. Occasionally there are exceptions to this rule. One of the most outstanding examples in recent years has been Congressman Ron Paul who ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2008 and 2012. His career and the principles he represented are described in a book by journalist Brian Doherty called Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man And The Movement He Inspired (Broadside Books, 2012). Paul is best known as a “libertarian” but his views also appeal to many conservative Christians. Doctor to politician Ron Paul was originally a medical doctor who became involved in politics. In his medical career he delivered about 4000 babies, and his knowledge of fetal development contributed to his pro-life views. But it wasn’t the abortion issue that ignited his participation in electoral politics. Instead, it was his views about money and government finance. While practicing medicine, Paul had been reading a lot about the importance of free enterprise economics as the basis of prosperity. Then, in the early 1970s, President Nixon implemented wage and price controls to curb inflation. Paul was incensed that an American president would implement such socialistic policies and he decided to do something about it. He ran as a Republican candidate for the US House of Representatives in the 1974 midterm election but lost. When the victorious Democratic candidate later resigned the seat, Paul was again the Republican candidate in a special election and this time he won. He served a few months as a Congressman but lost the seat in the 1976 general election. He ran again in 1978 and won. He kept the seat until he decided to run for the Republican nomination for a Senate seat in 1984, but lost that contest to Phil Gramm. Libertarian Party Although Paul had been a strong supporter of Ronald Reagan during the 1970s, he became disillusioned with Reagan’s presidency during the 1980s because of the lack of progress in shrinking the size of the federal government. Thus he joined the Libertarian Party and became that party’s presidential candidate in 1988. With the failure of his Libertarian Party presidential campaign, Paul went back to his medical practice and also produced newsletters on financial and political matters. He decided to run for Congress again in 1996. Although he had rejoined the Republican Party, party leaders were no longer supportive of him and tried to derail his candidacy. They convinced the local congressman to switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, and they supported that guy with money and prominent endorsements. As Doherty puts it, “The Republican Party did not want Ron Paul to be a congressman again.” Dr. No Nevertheless, Paul won and remained in office until 2012. During his time in office Paul became known as “Dr. No” because he voted against so many measures. He believes that the US federal government should be restricted to the powers authorized under the US Constitution. Much of what the federal government currently does is very questionable from a constitutional perspective. It has grown far beyond the bounds of its stated authority. Paul is thus known as a “constitutionalist” for this view. He is more popularly known as a “libertarian” because his views involve a very minimal role for the government. He does not compromise his views on these matters even when standing by principle makes his own constituents angry with him. Doherty quotes one congressman as saying that Paul is very predictable: If proposed legislation expands government or involves activities which he does not consider specifically authorized by the Constitution, then he will vote No. And Paul does not shy away from unpopular stances, even when they involve going against the flow. Doherty quotes Paul as saying, “when I take a vote contrary to a prevailing attitude, instead of hoping no one will notice I send out a press release.” There are 435 members of the House of Representatives, and sometimes the vote tally would be 434-1, with Paul being the odd man out. Some people believe Paul’s pro-life position contradicts his libertarian views. But that is not so. As Doherty points out, if an unborn child is a person (and he or she is), then “a libertarian believing in laws against abortion makes exactly as much sense as a libertarian believing in laws against murder.” Paul’s appeal Paul’s constitutionalist and libertarian views have made him very unpopular in many places including large portions of the Republican Party. On the other hand, during his presidential campaigns, his stances have resulted in a great diversity of people supporting his candidacy. Doherty notes that Paul campaign meetings would often bring together the usual Paul fan motley: concerned veterans, pierced anarchists, conservative Christian moms, real estate brokers and homeschoolers and weapons enthusiasts and peace hippies. Although Paul’s core supporters have usually been libertarians, he has also gathered a good number of conservative Christian supporters. Doherty writes, Paul could appeal to the religious right not just on the economic libertarianism and hard-money stuff – which resonated well with them then and now – but on social liberty issues such as free speech and just being left alone by the government to shape your own life in your own way. He could remind these people who valued homeschooling and the health of their own small religious communities that they should fear a government that interferes in their personal cultural choices – even if it means having to let the government respect choices they don’t personally like. Doherty also notes that Paul’s personal life should endear him to conservative Christians. He is a “serious family man, devoted to one woman, successfully raised five children with many happy devoted grandchildren and even great-grandchildren in their wake, a serious Christian.” Wikipedia lists him as being Southern Baptist. Republican presidential candidate Paul created a stir during both of his attempts to win the Republican presidential nomination, but he was never a front-runner. However, his campaigns did create a lot of excitement among libertarians, constitutionalists and some other segments of the conservative movement. He refused to endorse John McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008 and was therefore not allowed to speak at the Republican convention in Minneapolis. As a result, his supporters organized another event, the “Rally for the Republic,” that ran concurrently with the Republican convention in Minneapolis. The Rally for the Republic drew over ten thousand people and celebrated the constitutionalist and libertarian ideas promoted by Ron Paul. Doherty writes, “It had Ron Paul singers and Ron Paul intellectuals and Ron Paul economists and Ron Paul celebrities and, most of all, it had Ron Paul.” During his 2012 campaign for the Republican nomination, Paul decided not to run again for Congress, so his career as an elected official was over. However, his son, Rand Paul, was elected as a Senator from Kentucky in 2010 and is currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination for 2016. The Revolution: A Manifesto During 2008 Paul wrote a book explaining his principles and policy positions. It is entitled The Revolution: A Manifesto (Grand Central Publishing) and it became a New York Times number-one bestseller. One of the most important matters that Paul addresses in this book is his controversial views on foreign policy. Unlike most conservatives, he believes the United States should have a non-interventionist foreign and military policy. That is, the US should not become involved militarily unless it has been threatened or attacked. “Americans have the right to defend themselves against attack; that is not at issue,” he writes. But what is an issue is the use of American military power against other countries that have not harmed the US. The most famous example of interventionist foreign policy was the invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush in 2003. But there have been other recent examples such as President Clinton’s attack on Serbia in 1999. And in 2011 President Obama authorized the use of offensive military force against Libya despite the lack of any threat against the US coming from this country. This is what Paul opposes. In fact, Paul points out that the unnecessary use of American military power abroad causes more problems than it solves. He writes that, “when our government meddles around the world, it can stir up hornet’s nests and thereby jeopardize the safety of the American people.” Perhaps his most controversial position is his belief that attacks against Americans abroad, and even against the US itself such as 9/11, can result from people who think they must fight back against what they see as American imperialist aggression. Paul cites Michael Scheuer, chief of the CIA’s Obama bin Laden Unit in the late 1990s (and a conservative), in support of this view. Paul writes, His point is very simple: it is unreasonable, even utopian, not to expect people to grow resentful, and desirous of revenge, when your government bombs them, supports police states in their countries, and imposes murderous sanctions on them. That revenge, in its various forms, is what our CIA calls blowback – the unintended consequences of military intervention. Small government, at home and abroad Interestingly, Paul’s foreign policy views reflect those of the original conservative movement before the Cold War. As he notes, The so-called old Right, or original Right, opposed Big Government at home and abroad and considered foreign interventionism to be the other side of the same statist coin as interventionism at home. Being in favor of limited government means supporting a small role for the government in domestic policy, but also a small role (or no role) in the affairs of other nations. This is a consistent and principled position. Furthermore, it is useful to note that the aggressive use of military power abroad involves a huge cost in money and lives. As Paul puts it, “we waste a staggering amount of manpower, hardware, and wealth on a bloated overseas presence that would be better devoted to protecting the United States itself.” A considerable amount of money is wasted on foreign aid as well. Over the last few decades there has been tremendous progress in raising the living standards of millions of people in underdeveloped countries. But foreign aid is not the reason for that. Paul notes that, the economic success stories of the past half century have arisen not from foreign aid but out of the extraordinary workings of the free market, the great engine of human well-being that everyone is taught to hate. Conclusion All in all, Ron Paul’s view is that many problems would be solved if the US federal government was restricted to the role authorized for it by the US Constitution. In both domestic and foreign policy the federal government has grown far beyond its constitutional limitations. The framers of the Constitution did not envision such a large and interventionist federal government. One might think that many American politicians would support following the Constitution. In rhetoric many will speak well of it when doing so is convenient. But in recent years it has primarily been left to Ron Paul to publicly argue for constitutional limitations on government power, especially when doing so is politically unpopular. Receiving harsh criticism for supporting unpopular positions has not caused him to back down. That is because he stands on principle. He will not waver even when the political consequences are harmful to his career. This marks him as a rare bird in contemporary politics....

Red heart icon with + sign.
People we should know

A couple friends you should meet: Jay Adams & D. A. Carson

It’s no secret that I love books. Here in my study I often feel like I’m surrounded by good friends. Some are old friends, centuries old, but the two I’d like to introduce you to in this article are still writing today. The aim of this brief introduction is to help you find good friends for yourself — in other words, to find edifying reading that will give you a better understanding of the Christian faith, a greater grasp of the gospel, and a deeper love for Christ. Jay Adams (1929-2020) What does Jay Adams have in common with the Puritans? I mean, besides many theological commonalities? Both are objects of intense prejudice. Everybody knows that Jay Adams and his counseling methodology is bad, but very few people have actually read anything by Jay Adams. In the Canadian Reformed community, the source of this deep antipathy for Adams can be traced back to a 1977 article in Clarion by Dutch theologian C. Trimp. The article (originally a lecture he delivered at our seminary here in Hamilton), while expressing some appreciation, generally took Adams apart. Trimp’s critique would be echoed by CanRC leaders for years to come. However, what Trimp wrote was based on just one early book of Adams (Competent to Counsel) and, in the meantime, Adams had written several more books. In some of those books, he explained himself further and negated many of the criticisms that Trimp offered. I began reading Adams in university and was immediately impressed by his deep commitment to Scripture and the Reformed faith. Jay Adams is the author of more than 100 books and remains an in-demand lecturer. He did his seminary training at Reformed Episcopal Seminary and completed a Ph.D. at the University of Missouri. From 1963-1983, he taught at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Prior to that, he pastored a number of Presbyterian churches, including an Orthodox Presbyterian congregation. The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church currently holds his ministerial credentials. He was the founder of the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation (CCEF.org) as well as the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors (now called the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors – see BiblicalCounseling.com). He’s currently involved with the Institute for Nouthetic Studies (Nouthetic.org). Why is Jay Adams important? Jay Adams is important for precisely the same reason I first appreciated Adams back in university: he takes the Bible seriously. He writes on a variety of subjects, from Christian living to counseling to preaching, but whatever the topic, sola Scriptura is his touchstone. You may not always agree with his conclusions, but you have to agree that this is the right approach. Basically, Adams takes the presuppositional approach of Cornelius Van Til and applies it to pastoral theology. I’ve read about a dozen of Adams’ books and have learned a lot from them. Where do I start? As mentioned, Competent to Counsel was one of Adam’s earliest books, published in 1970. It’s an important book, but it does leave a lot of questions hanging. If you’re interested in Adam’s counseling methodology, a better place to start would be A Theology of Christian Counseling: More Than Redemption. A good follow-up would be How to Help People Change: The Four-Step Biblical Process. A couple of other books that are more directed to the regular “person in the pew”: What To Do on Thursday: A Layman’s Guide to the Practical Use of the Scriptures and The Biblical View of Self-Esteem, Self-Love, Self-Image. Preachers and aspiring preachers need to read his Truth Applied: Application in Preaching. What to watch out for? Adams is a controversial figure. On a formal level, some people have a difficult time getting past Adams’ tone and style. For some, he’s too strident, too forceful, too critical, or too this or that. Theologically, questions have sometimes been raised about Adam’s concept of habituation. George M. Schwab wrote an article in the Winter 2003 Journal of Biblical Counseling (published by CCEF) alleging that Adams was more influenced by O. Hobart Mowrer and William Glasser than by Scripture on this point. When someone has written as much as Adams, you can expect that there will be disagreements and critiques. Meanwhile, another generation of counselors has arisen and some of these (esp. at CCEF) have modified Adams’ approach in what may be described as a kinder and gentler direction. And while this is not a serious theological faux pas, if I remember correctly, Adams is also postmillennial in his eschatology. Conclusion Writing about Jay Adams in a positive way is a risky endeavor. For every positive point that one might rise, there will be a host of people who raise the negatives. Adams is not infallible, but he does respect the infallible Bible and he is Reformed in his convictions. I know that my life and ministry have certainly been enriched by his writings. Perhaps he has something to offer you too. By the way Jay Adams blogs at nouthetic.org/blog. D. A. Carson (1946- ) Donald Carson has a Canadian connection, being born in Montreal in 1946. His father was a Baptist pastor and missionary, first among English-speaking Quebeckers, then among the French. For Don Carson, one of the results is bilingual fluency. He did his undergrad studies at McGill University in Montreal, and then obtained a Master of Divinity degree from Central Baptist Seminary in Toronto. Carson was ordained in 1972 at a Baptist church in Richmond, BC. He then went on to obtain a Ph.D. in New Testament studies at Cambridge. After some years as a professor at a Baptist seminary in Vancouver, he moved to Wheaton, Illinois, to take up a position teaching New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He’s still there today. He’s written numerous books and articles. He frequently speaks at conferences and is actively involved with The Gospel Coalition. Why is D. A. Carson important? Carson has three endearing qualities. First, he is a New Testament scholar with a high view of the Bible. He believes fervently in biblical inspiration and inerrancy. Unfortunately, there are not many high-level NT scholars with such views of their subject matter. Second, Don Carson loves the gospel. This is reflected in his work with the Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel. His passion for the good news also surfaces in just about everything he writes. Third, Carson, like Mike Horton, is able to produce both high-quality scholarly writing and popular works that will edify any Christian. Where do I start? If you’re looking for something to whet your appetite, the best place to start is Carson’s biography of his dad, Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor (which can be downloaded for free at The Gospel Coalition). Then ease into Carson’s biblical scholarship with his helpful little volume, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. If it’s devotional reading that you’re looking for, check out his Scandalous: The Cross and Resurrection of Jesus. If you’re a seminary student, or if you’re a pastor and haven’t read it yet, Exegetical Fallacies is a must-read. If you have an interest in postmodernism and hermeneutics, The Gagging of God is a thorough treatment. What to watch out for? Well, if you haven’t guessed it already, Carson is a Baptist. I don’t view the denial of infant baptism as a minor, insignificant matter. However, honestly I don’t recall reading anything from Carson that has ever leapt out at me as being distinctly Baptist. It’s not as if he makes a point of arguing for believers’ baptism in each of his books, or even laying the foundation for that position. I think his purposes are higher. Another point worth mentioning is that Carson is not a cessationist — he believes that charismatic gifts did not cease with the time of the apostles. But again, this is not a strong theme tainting his writings. With regards to the doctrine of salvation (soteriology), Carson is Calvinistic. He holds to the doctrines of grace. Moreover, he frequently refers to the importance of confessional Christianity. He doesn’t mean that as a reference necessarily to the Three Forms of Unity or Westminster Standards, but to the kind of Christianity that grounds itself in confessions generally oriented to the Protestant Reformation. Though I don’t care for the expression myself, some would call him a “Reformed Baptist.” Conclusion I heard Don Carson speak a few years ago at the Canadian Gospel Coalition Conference just a few streets over from us here in Hamilton. I was impressed. He writes well, but speaks even better. Pretty much anything that Carson writes, I’ll read. If he’s speaking nearby, I’ll be there. I guarantee that this friend will edify you as well. Dr. Bredenhof is the author of many books including God Did Say! which is available at here....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Homosexuality

One in ten? Alfred Kinsey’s most famous lie

Even if you haven’t heard of Alfred Kinsey you probably have heard about one of his key “findings” – that 10% of all people are homosexual. Dr. Judith Reisman (in her book Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, 1998) asks, “who, indeed, today has not heard the mantra that homosexuals make up 10 percent of the US population?” She points out that the 10% figure is based “on Kinsey’s authority alone.” In fact, “Kinsey claimed to prove that homosexuals represented between 10% and 37% of all males.” How did Kinsey arrive at such a figure? It was simple. He deliberately set out to interview a large number of homosexuals to include in his database of human sexual behavior. During the 1940s, when he was conducting his research, this was no easy feat. Back in those days homosexuality was considered shameful, and many states in the USA had laws forbidding such conduct. Therefore Kinsey and his associates had to make a special effort to contact the homosexual enclaves that existed in large American cities in order to be able to solicit interviews with homosexuals. They were very successful, and hundreds of homosexual case histories were included in Kinsey’s data. In fact, the large number of homosexuals in Kinsey’s data meant that they were clearly over represented in relation to the normal population. Thus it was inescapable that the frequency of homosexuality would be exaggerated in Kinsey’s findings. And this is exactly what Kinsey intended. Reisman puts it succinctly: “Much of Kinsey’s work is designed to advance several revolutionary notions about homosexuality: that secret homosexuality was relatively commonplace; that most normal Americans hypocritically and secretly engaged in illicit sex of various kinds including homosexuality; that people were commonly bisexual meaning they were both homosexual and heterosexual; thus prejudice against homosexuality was hypocritical and based on ignorance of normal sexual behavior; and children and adults should experience and experiment with both their homosexual and heterosexual sides. Kinsey’s “research” was definitely agenda-driven and meant to normalize sexual perversion and overturn traditional morality. Among other things, he wanted to advance the cause of homosexuality. This purpose could be served by convincing people that homosexuality was relatively common. Thus he produced the figure that 10% of the population was homosexual, and it has been the generally accepted figure since then. But it is certainly not true. This was first published in the March 2015 issue....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Adult non-fiction, Book Reviews

The Thunder: A novel on John Knox

by Douglas Bond 2012 / 400 pages Rating: Good/Great/GIFT John Knox turns five hundred this year and I can't think of a better way to mark the occ...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Theology

How are we to read the Bible?

From January 16 to 18, in 2014, the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary hosted a conference on the topic of hermeneutics. It's a big word, but the...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Magazine, Past Issue

December 2013 issue

WHAT'S INSIDE: Ho Ho Ho Virginia! / Wasn't it just yesterday? / Same-sex "marriage" and slavery / Proclaim it grandfather! / In a Nutshell / Lena in t...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

A game for every situation

Visitors to my house are often surprised at the number of board games I own. OK, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably have too many games. Wha...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Magazine, Past Issue

October 2011 issue

WHAT'S INSIDE: Saving some is not compromise: the case for advancing abortion legislation in Canada one step at a time / When it is compromise / Best books: 3 on progressing pilgrims / Marring the perfection / Sex is powerful but dangerous / Christians are a friend of sex / God's plan for sexual purity: Marry earlier / Miniature machines that matter: even tiny viruses are a marvel to behold / God made incredibly-designed killing machines? / Looking for ET / Parent rests while toddlers play: film at 11 / People we should know: Francis Schaeffer: Intellectual leader of the Christian Right / John Bunyan on "How can we know what is in a Man's heart?" Click the cover to view in your browser or click here to download the PDF (39 mb) ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Magazine, Past Issue

April 2011 issue

WHAT'S INSIDE: "Just wait until I'm elected" / What if a candidate had courage? / Canada's law was based on God's law / John Piper on "One issue politics" / Deliverance from this body of death / 5 things I'm surprised I can't find in the Bible / Were there fossils in Paradise? Did Creation take six days? Or millions of years? / Guidance on what it means to be a successful woman / A different sort of Cuban vacation: Two Canadian Reformed couples decide to take up smuggling... / Earthquake research makes us humble / Read the Bible in 90 days Click the cover to view in your browser or click here to download the PDF (4 mb) ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Book Reviews, Teen non-fiction

Fish out of Water: Get equipped for college

by Abby Nye 2005 / 229 pages Rating: GOOD/Great/Give Nye wrote Fish out of Water, while in the third year of university, at the suggestion of her journalist parents. She was shocked, and overwhelmed by her first year on campus, but stuck it out, and started taking notes on the strange and perverse goings on at today’s secular campus. It started with her Welcome Week orientation activities, which included a meet and greet where guys and girls who had just met were greeting each other with a French kiss. Throughout the year, the weirdness continued – some of the activities included “National Condom Day” followed shortly after by a “campus-sponsored activity called ‘Just How Kinky Are You?’” The campus “Counseling and Consultation Center” prepared for February by handing out a flyer title, “Road Trip?” which advised students to set up a “drinking plan” for Spring Break and gave tips on what to do if your drinking buddy was so drunk he stopped breathing. But it isn’t just the weirdness that Nye addresses. She also tackles some of the day-to-day challenges Christians will face. She notes the hypocrisy many colleges have towards everything and anything, except Christianity, in a chapter titled, “We will not tolerate intolerance.” Her most helpful and practical advise can be found in the chapter “Pick your battles” where Nye shows how to stand up in a godly, respectful and effective way, and also shares thoughts on when it is probably best to just walk away instead. While Nye probably isn’t Reformed, her advice is biblically sound. This is a great volume for parents and college-bound students to read. The entire contents of the book can be read for free at AnswersInGenesis.org/articles/foow but for this to be properly digested you should pick it in paperback....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Magazine, Past Issue

October 2008 issue

WHAT’S INSIDE: Holding on to Wisdom: what would a younger you tell you to do? / Charges dropped against Ezra Levant, but... / A very busy winter / Kangaroo Canada: Canada's Human Rights Commissions may be a joke, but few are laughing / Getting whacked by the anti-spankers / Do not turn away: We need to learn about what is happening in Darfur / Old-man tremor and grey-haired splendor / One comment card and one email / Dear Mr. Turner - A letter to an irate inquisitive voters / Reasons to write / Write Right Now: RP's letter-writing contest / Why I love (and hate) Wikipedia / Grace / Tolerating Tolle? Eckhart Tolle and Oprah are leading millions the wrong way / Why the Phoenix flew to Mars / Respectful language Click the cover to view in your browser or click here to download the PDF (2 mb) ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Adult fiction, Book Reviews

Is There Balm in Gilead?

There is a balm in Gilead To make the wounded whole; There is a balm in Gilead To heal the sin-sick soul. Some times I feel discouraged, And thin...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Magazine, Past Issue

July/Aug 2001 issue

WHAT’S INSIDE: Got Milk? / Report from Australia: Indonesia is still a basket case / Reaching out to a world of hurt / In a Nutshell / Raising a God...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Being the Church

Laughter in the pews

My mother has a wise saying, one of many I might add, that if you go to church faithfully, you'll experience lots of interesting things. And she wasn'...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Christian education - Sports

Is the good foul good? Playing basketball a different way
Red heart icon with + sign.
Education

Home education - a way of life

"I get to help bake bread!" "Jason, can I read to you while you paint?" "Let's invite somebody over today. We can make cream puffs." Another day has begun. In our 'school' every day is a new adventure and the children plan their days as much as I do. It's been called "delight-directed learning," and we are enthusiastic advocates of this approach to home-education. The basic idea is to find out what interests your child has, and then to guide him to useful resources and experiences so he becomes an "expert in his field". Because we are not bound to a curriculum, we can use whatever books and resources we believe will be helpful and they can work at the pace which allows them to absorb the subject to the highest degree. Another advantage is that we can wait until our children are ready before teaching them new concepts, and we found this especially beneficial in teaching our son to read. Not everyone follows this approach. In 1997, there were over 6000 families home-educating in the province of Alberta, and each family chose the methods which were best for their children. Many home-educating parents follow a curriculum that provides daily lesson plans, workbooks and textbooks. They like the structure this provides and need the assurance that everything is being covered. Even so, they usually find that because one-on-one teaching is so effective, they can finish all the bookwork in the morning and use the afternoons to pursue other things. What Should They Be Taught? "But how do you know that your children are learning everything they need to know for adulthood??!" This is a question which we are frequently asked. It's true that they won't know everything by the time they turn eighteen, but then again, who does? Education should prepare children for a lifetime of learning, and the best thing we, as parents, can do when our children are young, is instill in them a love of learning and teach them how to communicate effectively, to write well, to be respectful and self-disciplined. These are the kinds of things young people need in the world, and if they don't know who the second president of the United States was, they'll know where to find the answer if they need it! Not that I'm downplaying the importance of history - our children need to know that there was life before they came along! We believe that the most important thing our children need to be trained in is good character. Developing patience, perseverance, diligence, obedience, generosity, self-control, discernment, resourcefulness, orderliness, compassion, deference, and a host of other qualities is a life-long pursuit which is best begun when our children are young. Nobody has a greater interest in our children's character development than we parents do, and nobody has a greater motivation either - we have to live with them! Here's a quick quiz for you: what do Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Albert Einstein, the Wright Brothers, Philip Melanchthon, Leonardo da Vinci, Abraham Lincoln, Charles Dickens, and John Wesley have in common? They were all home-educated! I'm not saying that every home-educated child will grow up to be a genius, believe me, but I was very interested to read about these famous home-educated people, and I wonder what curriculum (or lack of it) they used! So how were we introduced to the concept of home-education? A friend of ours, who knew that we were looking into education options, called me up and said, "I heard this guy on the radio talking about home-schooling. It sounds kind of interesting; here's his phone number." And that was the beginning of a whirlwind of phone calls and questions, because this was only two months before our eldest was to start school. We decided to take the plunge and try it for a year, since kindergarten wasn't compulsory, and if it didn't work out we could put her in school for grade one. Instead, it has turned out to be a great source of joy for us to see our children grow and mature, to talk with them often, to have the best hours of the day with them, and to guide them in the ways of the Lord. And our children have the freedom to pursue their interests, to spend as much time as they want on what they are working on, and to be best friends with each other! What About Socialization? This is another thing we are often questioned about. What is "socialization," anyway? Is it not learning how to interact appropriately with others of all ages, having good manners and good habits, and behaving properly? These can all be learned very effectively in the setting of a family and in spending time with friends in the church and neighborhood. Peer pressure is avoided and they are free to be themselves and grow up slowly! So what do our kids do all day? We have three children: Jessica (12), Michelle (9), and Jason (8). Jessica does a lot of reading, Michelle is a craft enthusiast, and Jason plays with Lego a lot. They spend time together outside and get in each other's way occasionally. They have chores to do every day (dishes are a favorite), but a lot of their time is their own. Every so often, I say the word "math" and everyone dives for cover. Unfortunately for them, some things just have to be done, and times tables, borrowing and carrying, and fractions have all had their turn on the table. Spelling, handwriting, and phonics are other non-options. But then there are social and science topics that are theirs to choose. Middle Ages, Australia, bears, South America, seals, tigers, and beavers have all been covered, and the science kit is always available. The little electric circuit with a car wired in is fun to get out once in a while. Scooping creatures out of Grandad's pond and raising tadpoles has also been exciting for some (dad was unimpressed!). We are blessed in Alberta to have very reasonable home-school regulations that allow us the freedom to choose our own curriculum and teaching methods. We are required to register with a school board in the province. Various options are available to fulfill this requirement. The school board keeps records of our children's progress and assigns a facilitator who visits twice a year. They provide tests (government achievement tests, Canadian Test of Basic Skills, and others) if the parents want to make use of these. The board also provides funding for supplies (up to $510 per child per year upon sending in receipts, starting in Grade 1), and group lessons. Art supplies, books, and educational games are all covered by this funding. Where's Your Education Degree? "But you're not qualified to teach your children!" This is a misconception that holds many parents back from home-educating their own children, but studies have shown that even high school dropouts can effectively teach their children. All the parents need is to be literate and to have a love and concern for the overall development of the children that God has entrusted to them. It's true we are not government certified teachers, and it's true we're not experts on all the topics our kids ask us questions about, but some of the most rewarding experiences we have with our children are when we are learning together with them. There are always going to be things that we don't know, but we can show them where to find the answers, and let them discover things for themselves. Books, other people, educational videos, and field trips have been wonderful sources of information for us. We visit the library frequently and request books on topics the children are interested in. Setting an example of enthusiasm for learning is much more of a motivation for our children than trying to give them the impression that we know it all! We are members of a Christian support group in our city consisting of over one hundred families. We meet once per month to exchange ideas, hear about new opportunities, and use the library that belongs to the group. Each year a science fair is organized where the children can do a project and explain it to others. A field trip committee organizes various outings which families can go on together. Some of our favorites have been the John Walter Museum, Safety City, voyageur canoeing, and the Ukrainian Pioneer Village. These field trips are an opportunity to meet with other home-educating families. In the spring one of the families in the support group organized a track and field day, which was great fun! We try to take advantage of opportunities which we feel will advance the academic, social, and character development of our children. On to University Another query that home-educators often hear is "What if they want to go on to college or university?" We are not experts on this, as our oldest is only in grade seven at the moment, but from information which we have gleaned from meetings, conferences, and home-school families with older children, most colleges and universities have become much more open to the "home-school graduate" in the last five or ten years. Applicants from home-school families are not as rare as they once were, and for some colleges the writing of standardized equivalency tests is all that is necessary. For others, the Math and English Departmental exams must be written. In most cases though, it is recommended that students meet with the registrar ahead of time (in grade ten or eleven) to discuss options. It is also possible to qualify as a "mature student" upon reaching the age specified by the college (sometimes as low as 16 if the student has been out of school for one year). Another option students have to learn a trade is apprenticeship. This idea has been growing rapidly in home-school circles as it allows parents to have input into who their child's "teacher" will be. It is usually possible to find a Christian individual who does just what your young person wants to do, and most would be glad to have an assistant who works for free in exchange for being taught the necessary skills. This is just one of the ways that apprenticeship could work. Opportunities abound for motivated young people! As home-educators, we are often told that our children are naive. I must confess when we hear this we are encouraged. Do we really want them to be "worldly-wise," aware of all that goes on in the world around them? Their young minds are not equipped to deal with that kind of information. Should we talk to them about the evil practices of the world so that we can explain why they are wrong? That isn't right. Romans 16:19 says, "I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil." It is our duty as parents to shield our children from wrong influences and ideas. They will hear about it soon enough when they are older, and then they will be better able to deal with it and to stand firm in the faith they were brought up in. We are thankful that we heard about home education when we did. Our children are a gift from our Heavenly Father, and we treasure every day we have with them - they will be grown before we know it! Home education is a wonderful way to stay close to our children, to know what they are learning, and to guide them in the ways of the Lord. The primary responsibility of raising and educating children rests with their parents, and we have chosen to fulfill that responsibility ourselves instead of delegating it to others. It has become a way of life for us, and we are grateful for the opportunity to teach our children at home!...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

If strikes are bad can unions be good?

I grew up hearing horror stories about unions but little else. Unions were bad because union members threw bottles and sticks at their opposition. Later on I found that unions often supported political parties that favored abortion. There was more harsh criticism when a teacher's union went on strike, demanding more money and holding the students for ransom. Unions were bad because their actions were bad. But is it possible to have a good union, even a Christian union? What if such a Christian union took a stand against picket line violence, didn't support political parties, and didn't strike? Would there be a place for this type of union? Maybe. Is there such a union now? No. The Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC) almost fits the bill. It's certainly against picket line violence, and doesn't support any political parties. That already elevates it above almost every other union but the CLAC is better than other unions in still other ways. Secular unions' are condemned in most Reformed circles for several reasons, including: Many require an oath of allegiance promising unconditional obedience to the principles of that union's constitution. Christians can't promise this type of obedience to anyone or anything besides God. Secular unions promote a class struggle between employers and employees, as if the two were natural enemies. Whereas the Bible instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves, these unions encourage animosity between owners and their employees. The idea of a class struggle between the rich class and the poor class is accepted as inevitable by these unions (Karl Marx also thought it was inevitable). Unions strike. In contrast the CLAC recognizes God's supremacy and encourages a cooperative environment between employer and employee. Instead of advocating a class struggle they repeatedly emphasize respect and cooperation. But while the CLAC differs from most unions in these respects, it still shares the other unions' willingness to go on strike. They go on strike a lot less often, but they still go on strike. So the question is, can Christians go on strike? What Are Strikes? Employees have always had the ability to leave their jobs when they're unhappy with either the working conditions or their salaries. All they have to do is quit. When employees strike, however, they leave their jobs and prevent anyone else from taking them. They retain a claim to their job even as they vacate it. There is also a coercive element to strikes. They are designed to force employers to capitulate to employee demands. And what's wrong with that? The first problem is the harm caused by just such a strike. Whenever a business is shut down by a strike the people who have come to depend on that business suffer. The most obvious example is a teacher's strike, where the students suffer, but the same thing happens no matter what type of business is involved. A strike at a tire manufacturer will hurt (and maybe even shutdown) the automaker that's dependent on that tire supplier. The striking workers hurt innocent third parties. I once heard a union representative argue that there was no such thing as innocent third parties. He reasoned that if company B bought supplies from company A because of A's good price, and A had a good price because he unjustly underpaid his workers, then B was at least partially responsible for this injustice. B was encouraging injustice by supporting an unjust employer and so B would only get what he deserved if he was hurt by a strike at company A. This whole argument hinges on the union representative's idea of justice. He thought it was unjust to underpay workers. It might very well be, but who exactly is supposed to decide what a just wage is? Is $5 just? How about $10? Obviously it depends on the type of work. A McDonald's employee can't expect to get paid as much as computer engineer. But still the question remains, exactly how do you determine a just wage for these two positions? Wages, just or not, were at one time determined by free enterprise ideas of supply and demand. The lower the supply of qualified workers, and the higher the demand for those workers, the higher the wage would be. And vice versa. So an entry-level unskilled position at McDonald's, a position anyone could fill, receives a low wage, and a highly skilled, sought after computer engineer makes hundreds of thousands. On a basic level this seems fair, and even just to most people. We can clearly understand why some people are paid more and others are paid less. Skilled people get paid more and people in unpopular jobs get paid more because they are skilled, and because they are willing to do jobs no one else will. But when unions are thrown into the mix things get a bit peculiar. Have you ever wondered why mailmen get paid so much? Well back in the good old days of my father's youth (long, looooong ago) they weren't paid much more than an entry-level wage. After all, it didn't take a lot of brains to deliver mail, (really, how different is it from what your paperboy does?), so the post office didn't have to offer a high wage to attract employees. But then unions got involved and someone decided that mail delivery wasn't an entry-level position, it was a career. Minimum wage obviously wasn't good enough for a career position (perhaps it was even called unjust) so with the help of a number of strikes the union managed to substantially increase their workers wages. And they managed to substantially increase the cost of mail too. But why did their wages increase? Only because the union decided their jobs were career positions, not entry level. The union decided, and it had nothing to do with justice or fairness. And when steel workers, or grocery store clerks go on strike for another 25 cents an hour, it again is simply a union decision, and it has absolutely nothing to do with justice. Any attempt to link pay increases to justice is simply rhetoric meant to disguise the harm being done to the truly innocent third parties. And that's what's wrong with strikes. Strikes hurt third parties, not to further the cause of justice, but to further the striking workers' own welfare. The striking workers are thinking only of themselves. Non-striking Unions? Selfishness is only one problem with strikes. The coercive nature of strikes, where the employees try to bring their employer to his knees, isn't exactly in keeping with a Biblical theme. But if strikes are bad can unions be good? Yes, because unions don't have to go on strike. As mentioned before, employees have always had the option of quitting their jobs if they were unsatisfied with either the working conditions or the wages. If employees didn't have this ability they would be little more than slaves. Now, if a certain employer decides to pay unreasonably low wages, this non-striking union could advise its members to quit and seek employment in more profitable fields. But that isn't all such a union could do. As it stands now the CLAC already has a retraining center for employees who have lost their jobs. The center is paid for with union dues, and is used to retrain workers for new jobs usually with their same company. This center could be used to train employees to find new jobs in new fields of employment with other companies. Then when an employer decided to be unreasonable, his workers wouldn't be limited to just the jobs he was offering, at the unreasonable wage he was offering. If he wanted to retain them, he would have to start paying them a reasonable amount. A naïve dream? Perhaps a bit...but all the good dreams are....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Science - General

Star gazing and star guessing

The night sky has always fascinated mankind. Ancient people were able to identify many constellations and follow their annual paths across the sky. In the oldest, perhaps, book in the Bible, God asks Job if the latter has any influence in the sky. "Can you bind the chains of Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion? Can you lead forth a constellation in its season and guide the Bear with her satellites?" (Job 38:31). Already in an earlier chapter we were informed that it is God who made all these objects. Even today the Pleiades and the Hyades (open star clusters in the constellation Taurus or the Bull) are interesting to astronomers. The Hyades are considered to constitute the nearest moderately rich star cluster. As a result, these stars have been assigned a central role in calibrating a measuring stick in space. The procedure has been to compare objects of unknown distance with an object of known distance. By means of mathematical equations the unknown distance can generally be calculated. For example, if star A is a known distance away, then it is easy to calculate how far it is to an equally energetic star that appears to be dimmer. The distance to the latter star is proportional to the reduced light that we perceive from that star. The problem is how ever that astronomers do not actually know how energetic (bright) a star is, if they do not know its distance. Bad Guesses It is evident that we must know the distance to a source of light before that we can estimate how energetically that body is emitting light or in other words how bright it actually is. For example, a flashlight, an airplane and a star may all look equally bright to an observer. If they were all located an equal distance away from the observer however, dramatic differences would be apparent. Indeed, as astronomer Michael Perryman remarks, "Almost everything in astronomy depends in some way on knowing star distances. This is particularly true of the cosmic distance scale extending out to the farthest galaxies and quasars. And the cosmic distance scale determines how well we know the true sizes, brightness, and energy outputs of nearly everything in the universe" (Sky and Telescope, June 1999 p. 42). In view of the importance of the initial measuring stick, one would hope that astronomers have based their calculations on very reliable numbers for the distance to the Hyades, their base point. This however has not been the case. As Dr. Perryman confides, "Many creative methods have been brought to bear on the Hyades distance problem over the last 100 years - with tantalizingly discordant results. This has been quite frustrating for a cluster so close" (p. 45). Yet William J. Kaufmann II wrote in the 1994 edition of his text: "Because the distance to the Hyades cluster is the most accurately determined of all stellar distances, it provides the basis upon which all other astronomical distances are determined" (Universe, Fourth Edition, p. 341). Dr. Kaufmann felt complacent enough, at the time, to assure us concerning the state of astronomy, that "In recent years, a remarkably complete picture has emerged, offering insight into our relationship with the universe as a whole and our place in the cosmic scope of space and time" (p. 337). Some observers might have suggested that Dr. Kaufmann couch his remarks in more cautious terms. Better Results The complacency of astronomers has however been somewhat shaken by data released in 1997. In 1989 the European Space Agency (ESA) had launched a satellite called Hipparcos (an acronym for High Precision Parallax Collecting Satellite). This device was designed to use trigonometry to directly measure distances to the closest stars. The data have proved very interesting and there have been plenty of surprises. The good news is that accurate distances (to within ten percent of the true value) have been achieved for more than 22,000 stars. Previously, such results were possible only for several hundred stars. These stars all lie within three hundred light years of Earth. Another 30,000 stars have been measured to within twenty percent of their true value. Such numbers represent a cornucopia of information. The measurements made by the Hipparcos satellite are based on trigonometry. Just as it is possible to measure distances on earth by means of imaginary triangles, astronomers achieve similar results in space. Their triangle needs a very long base so that the angles at the corners will be large enough to measure. The base of the triangle is taken to be the diameter of Earth's orbit at its maximum extent. Since the orbit is an ellipse, the diameter changes throughout the year. We use the maximum distance. The astronomer photographs a star on two occasions, six months apart. In this way, observations are made from opposite sides of Earth's orbit. The angles of the triangle are then calculated by comparing the star's shift in position compared to a backdrop of more distant stars. The length of one side of the triangle is the distance from Earth to the star. Prior to Hipparcos, astronomers were able to obtain good results only up to 65 light-years away. The closest one is Alpha Centauri, a mere 4.3 light-years from us. Now however with the European satellite, accurate measurements of much smaller angles are possible. This has astronomically expanded the number of accurately measured objects in the sky. The time had now come to compare previous estimates with the new numbers. Something Doesn't Fit Hipparcos was the first space mission specifically designed to measure star positions. Data were collected for four years. This was followed by a further three years in which the results were analyzed. Among unexpected findings, two hundred relatively close but dim stars were discovered. In addition, many well known stars turned out to be much farther away (and thus more energetic) than previously believed. As a result, fewer nearby stars could be identified as "main-sequence stars" and there was only half as many giants as previously estimated. "Main-sequence stars" are identified according to the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram that plots stars' rate of light production against their temperature. Temperature is estimated from color but estimates of light or energy production are highly dependent on distance. The significance of the Hertzsprung-Russell sequence is that it has traditionally been interpreted as reflecting the evolution of stars. In the light of Hipparcos data, however, astronomers have come to suspect that their previous conclusions were "too simplistic. Something else sees to be going on" (Perryman p. 47). Particularly surprising are the values obtained for the Pleiades cluster. At 375 light-years, this group of stars seems to be located 15% closer than previous estimates. The result, says Dr. Perryman, is that the stars in the Pleiades cluster can "no longer easily be accommodated into existing pictures of star formation or evolution" (p. 47). In other words these stars no longer qualify as main sequence stars. The Hyades, on the other hand, were located considerably further away than expected. People who enjoy the beauty of the night sky but who do not wish to be encumbered with jargon and trigonometry, may wonder why we should care about the Hipparcos data. The point is that these numbers are reliable because the calculations include only values that are established by direct observation. Beyond 200 or 300 light-years however, nearly all other measuring techniques are indirect. Consequently the calculated results are only as dependable as the assumptions upon which they are based. The general public seems not to be aware of that fact. Particularly in astronomy where small numbers are extrapolated into huge conclusions, you and I, as consumers of information, should be very wary. The whole issue reminds me of a little ditty from a Victorian era operetta. In Act II of Pirates of Penzance, Little Buttercup warns us not to be fooled by casual observation. Pay attention to the details. As she puts it: Things are seldom what they seem Skim milk masquerades as cream; Storks turn out to be but logs; Bulls are but inflated frogs. So they be. Frequentlee. This does not mean that we should ignore astronomy. It merely means that we should be aware of the uncertainties....

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36