It is amazing to me that research institutions often spend millions of dollars to prove what most of us intuitively know. When it comes to the media, often they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to discover what most mothers already know.

That was the case with the studies published many years ago in the Journal of Pediatrics. The researchers concluded that watching sexual content on television affected subsequent behavior. They found that teenagers who watched lots of sexual images were more likely to be involved sexually. And they also documented that teenage girls who viewed lots of sexual images were more likely to be pregnant.

The latest study looked at the impact of sexual content in the movies. Once again they concluded that “exposure to sexual content in popular movies predicts sexual behavior in adolescence.” That makes sense. Lots of studies have already demonstrated that teenagers who watch more risky behaviors in popular movies, like smoking or drinking, are more likely to smoke or drink. This latest research merely looked at the impact of watching sexual images in the movies.

The researchers surveyed the 684 top grossing movies from 1998 to 2004. They coded the movies for sexual content. By the way, I might mention that there was a high percentage in all the movies regardless of their rating. That was a bit of a surprise to me.

They then recruited 1,228 participants who were 12 to 14-years-old. Then they collected data on the movies they watched and checked back with them six years later to see when they became sexually active and how risky their sexual behavior might have been.

They found that teenagers “who are exposed to more sexual content in movies start having sex at younger ages, have more sexual partners” and are less likely to practice so-called “safe sex.” But I guess most mothers could have predicted the results before they did the study.

Who invented the Internet? If you ask this question, you are likely to get lots of different answers. The humorous answer is the Al Gore invented the Internet. He did coin the term the information superhighway in a speech he gave. Later in a CNN interview, he stated: “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” But no, Al Gore didn’t invent the Internet.

Actually no one person invented the Internet. If you look at it history, you will find various names associated with the development of a global network that came to be called the world-wide web. But many people assume that the Internet was built by the government, especially since various politicians point to it as an example of the importance of government funding and research.

Gordon Crovitz took the time in the recent editorial to refute “the urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike.”

The idea of the Internet may have started with Vannevar Bush. He was the presidential adviser during World War II who oversaw the development of radar and the Manhattan Project. He proposed that we build a “memex” through which “wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified.”

In the 1960s, technologists began to connect separate physical communications into a global network. Yes, the federal government was involved, but in a modest way and it wasn’t to maintain communications during a nuclear strike. People like Vinton Cerf came along and developed the protocols necessary for the various networks to communicate with each other. In fact, many of the top researchers realized they couldn’t wait for the government to connect different networks. They did it themselves.

The true history of the Internet is not one of government planning and funding, but one of private actions and innovation.

Researchers at the University of Washington have been able to map the genetic blueprint of an unborn baby using only a blood sample from the mother and the saliva from the father. It sounds like something out of a science fiction novel, yet it is science fact that we can do genetic screening using high speed DNA sequencing.

Welcome to the future in which doctors can (with 98 percent accuracy) screen a fetus for more than 3,000 genetic conditions such as Down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy. But since we cannot treat or cure many of these genetic conditions, genetic screening has become a tool for a “search and destroy mission.”

Thirty years ago when I wrote my book on Genetic Engineering, I pointed out that the doctors using scientific tools like amniocentesis could determine some genetic defects, but the doctors could not cure the genetic conditions they discovered. Fast forward to today. We have more sophisticated techniques to discover a genetic blueprint of the unborn, but we still cannot cure most of these conditions. Parents are, therefore, more likely than ever to choose abortion.

I recently had medical ethicist Ben Mitchell on my radio program to talk about this new advance. He explained that because of genetic screening for Down syndrome, 90 percent of children with this condition are never born.

He also reminded us that the Bible has quite a bit to say about people with disabilities. The blind, the deaf, the mute, and the lame are often mentioned in one way or another. The Holiness Code prohibited cursing the deaf or putting a stumbling block before the blind (Lev. 19:4). Isaiah taught that despite any impairment, the faithful will receive everlasting blessings (Isaiah 56:3-5). And Jesus taught in the Parable of the Great Banquet that He will invite “the poor, the crippled, the lamb, and the blind” to the feast (Luke 14:11-14).

The battle today is between two worldviews. One focuses on the quality of life and permits us to “weed out” the undesirables. The other is based on the sanctity of all human life because every person is created in the image of God.

Whenever one of us complains about what is being shown on television these days, we are likely to hear the favorite cliché: “If you don’t like it, just change the channel.” Melissa Henson of the Parents Television Council took on that tired cliché by explaining how meaningless it really is.

What started the discussion was a blog post by a mother complaining about what she saw on Good Morning America at breakfast. They aired what could only be considered a soft-porn ad for a program called “Betrayal.” The ad depicted a man and woman fully nude and having sex. This is not exactly what you expected to see over a bowl of oatmeal while trying to get everyone out the door.

The cliché (just change the channel) rings very hollow as an appropriate response. The mother and her children weren’t watching a primetime soap or a cable mini-series. They had no reason to expect such content on a morning show they were watching to catch up on the news or to check the traffic and weather.  Her son’s innocence died a little bit on that morning.

Melissa Henson rightly observes that the “just change the channel” mentality puts the burden on the parents and relieves the networks of any responsibility. Incidents like this require parents to be constantly on guard even at time when you would never think such an image would be shown. This mentality also gives networks a green light to air whatever they want whenever they want.

Melissa Henson says that the “just change the channel” crowd might as well be saying “throw out your television sets.” That is a more realistic solution than the one they are suggesting. And I am not surprised that I am hearing from more and more of the listeners to my radio program that they decided to get rid of their television sets. It is easy to understand why people are doing that. The “just change the channel” cliché implies you should have no say in what is pumped into your home through the television set. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Whenever one of us complains about what is being shown on television these days, we are likely to hear the favorite cliché: “If you don’t like it, just change

the channel.” Melissa Henson of the Parents Television Council took on that tired cliché by explaining how meaningless it really is.

What started the discussion was a blog post by a mother complaining about what she saw on Good Morning America at breakfast. They aired what could

only be considered a soft-porn ad for a program called “Betrayal.” The ad depicted a man and woman fully nude and having sex. This is not exactly what you

expected to see over a bowl of oatmeal while trying to get everyone out the door.

The cliché (just change the channel) rings very hollow as an appropriate response. The mother and her children weren’t watching a primetime soap or a

cable mini-series. They had no reason to expect such content on a morning show they were watching to catch up on the news or to check the traffic and

weather.  Her son’s innocence died a little bit on that morning.

Melissa Henson rightly observes that the “just change the channel” mentality puts the burden on the parents and relieves the networks of any responsibility.

Incidents like this require parents to be constantly on guard even at time when you would never think such an image would be shown. This mentality also gives

networks a green light to air whatever they want whenever they want.

Melissa Henson says that the “just change the channel” crowd might as well be saying “throw out your television sets.” That is a more realistic solution than

the one they are suggesting. And I am not surprised that I am hearing from more and more of the listeners to my radio program that they decided to get rid of

their television sets. It is easy to understand why people are doing that. The “just change the channel” cliché implies you should have no say in what is

pumped into your home through the television set. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Some in the clergy are beginning to understand that the battle between church and state will not end well for those in the church. That is one of the lessons we learn from Nicholas Hahn’s commentary on “Chicago’s Archbishop at the Barricades.” He is talking about the Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Francis George.

Cardinal George has never been one to mince words in taking on those who would criticize the Catholic Church’s moral stands on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. He reminds those who criticize that “the church is no one’s private club.” And he adds that in a few years they would “stand before the same Christ to give an account of their stewardship.”

He has criticized the Obama administration for behaving “as if a right to free contraception were now a constitutional right” that presumes to supersede “the genuinely constitutional right of freedom of religion.” He announced that the church “will simply not cooperate.”

He decried how “this tendency for the government to claim for itself authority over all areas of human experience flows from the secularization of our culture. If God cannot be part of public life, then the state itself plays God.”

Most of all he is concerned about what this intrusion by government could mean to church and state relations. More than once he has made this haunting statement. “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.”

When we repeated the cardinal’s ominous prediction on radio a week ago, no one disagreed with it. But some suggested that it may happen earlier than what he predicted. It’s a question I suggest you ask your pastor. Does he think his successor will die in prison, and that his successor will die a martyr? If so, ask him what he is doing to prevent that from happening. Standing by and doing nothing is not an option. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Why do people reject Jesus? That is the question evangelist Don Johnson asks and answers in his post, “Sexual Immorality and Five Other Reasons People Reject Christianity.” He concludes that many of the reasons skeptics reject the biblical message have as much to do with psychology and morality as it does with theology.

Many skeptics reject the Bible and Christianity because of heartbreak. He quotes from New York Times columnist Russell Baker. In his autobiography he talks about a pivotal time in his life when his father died. At an early age he concluded that God was not to be trusted and eventually became a skeptic.

Not having a positive role model for a father is another reason for skepticism. Psychologist Paul Vitz made this case years ago in his book, Faith of the Fatherless. He observed from studying the lives of history’s atheists that they usually grew up without a father or had a defective father. The argument is more sophisticated than I can discuss here, but it makes sense that if you have a problem with your earthly father you might also have a problem with your Heavenly Father.

Vitz himself says he became an atheist in college because of social pressure. That is another reason people reject the Bible and Jesus Christ. If you want to be seen as objective and sophisticated in college and in the secular world, you have to toss all of this “Jesus stuff.”

Vitz also admits that “personal inconvenience” is another major factor in atheism. Being a Christian takes time and commitment. For many the cost of discipleship is just too great, especially if you are being persecuted for your faith.

One last reason for unbelief is immorality. People think there is something wrong with a belief system that puts limits on your sexual behavior. An easy way to justify sin is to deny there is a Creator and that there is a moral order to the universe.

The next time you encounter an atheist or skeptic, it’s worth remembering that often the reasons for unbelief are more psychological and moral than they are rational and theological. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Many people have referred to Professor Richard Dawkins as the world’s most famous atheist. He is certainly one of the biggest antagonists against

Christianity and presumptive leader of a group often called “the New Atheists.”

In the past he has had lots of awful things to say about religion in general and Christianity in particular. In his bestselling book, The God Delusion, he

described the God of the Old Testament as “the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a

vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist.” He goes on, but I will spare you the rest.

He has referred to the Catholic Church as an “evil corrupt organization.” He even said that it is a “child-raping institution.” He believes that the biblical

teaching about hell is a mental abuse that is even worse than sexual abuse. Dawkins has received surprisingly little criticism for his vitriol.

While Richard Dawkins was saying awful things about Christianity, he has been unusually quiet about Islam, until recently. He broke his silence in a series

of tweets aimed at dismissing the Muslim claims to scientific advances. He merely observed that: “all the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity

College, Cambridge.”

British newspapers ran stories about the controversy. “How dare you dress up your bigotry as atheism. You are now beyond an embarrassment,” fumed one

commentator. As you might expect, Dawkins was inundated with hostile tweets.

Like it or not, Richard Dawkins was stating a fact. Trinity graduates have three times as many Nobel Prizes as all Muslims. And if you eliminate the Nobel

Prize winners from the list, the ratio is nearly eight-to-one.

This latest dust-up illustrates two things. You can say just about anything about Christianity with impunity. Take on Islam, and you will pay a price. I’m

Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.