Seth Shostak believes this could be humanity’s last century. But don’t think he is a pessimist. He is the Director of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence and warn us about potential dangers on the horizon but also explains that our 21st century technology holds great promise.

He believes we will be able to understand biology at the molecular level. That will give humanity the ability to cure all diseases. But it will also usher in an era of “designer babies.” He believes that we will eventually produce offspring that are as different from us as dogs are from grey wolves.

He also believes that we will expand into space to obtain additional resources (such as copper, zinc, and platinum). Humanity might establish colonies on the moon or Mars. We might also develop huge, orbiting habitats in space.

He also predicts that we will develop generalized artificial intelligence. This will allow machines to take over jobs normally done by humans. It is possible that in the near future, robotics will be so advanced that it might be difficult to tell the difference between who is a real human and who is a machine.

If his predictions are true (and I believe they are fairly accurate) then we will need wisdom and morality to guide us through these new advances. Put simply, we need Christian ethics and morality like never before. Unfortunately, the moral foundation behind much of these technological advances is a secular, humanistic one.

We need Christians in the fields of science and engineering to provide moral reflection. And we cannot retreat into a belief that Jesus will return before all of these technologies are developed. He may not return when we think that He might. We should not be preoccupied with His coming, we need to occupy until He comes.

Whether you are a Christian or not, you are benefiting from the positive impact of Christianity on your life. That is the premise of the book by Dr. Rodney Stark. Although I have interviewed Professor Stark on many of his books, I was unaware of his book, America’s Blessings: How Religion Benefits Everyone Including Atheists. Jerry Newcombe brought his book to my attention in a recent column.

This book is a natural one for the professor to write since he has talked about the positive contribution of Christianity to Western civilization. Since we live in a country that Stark describes as “unusually religious” we shouldn’t be surprised that many of the blessings that Christianity has brought to the world can be found in America.

He says people who attend church tend to donate more than others. In previous commentaries I have talked about the research by Arthur Brooks that found the same things. Rodney Stark says that: “religious people dominate the ranks of blood donors, to whom even some angry humanists owe their lives.” Christians also “are far more likely to contribute even to secular charities, to volunteer their times to socially beneficial programs, and to be active in civic affairs.”

Religious Americans also enjoy better physical health. They have “an average life expectancy more than seven years longer than that of the irreligious.” In fact, much of this difference remains even after the effects of “clean living” are removed.

Rodney Stark also talks about another topic we have discussed in previous commentaries: the fertility gap. The fertility rate for religious people is much higher than for secular people. He cites Eric Kaufman’s book, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? That book points out that when you look at Europe, the population is declining, except in the religious sector.
Despite what you might hear from atheists and skeptics, Christianity has been a blessing to America and the world.

Joel Rosenberg was on my radio program to talk about his novel, The First Hostage. We didn’t spend too much time talking about his book, but instead focused on the phenomenon of apocalyptic Islam. Let me explain what that is.

There is both radical Islam as well as apocalyptic Islam. The vast majority of Muslims did not fit into either category. According to some reliable polls only about 10 percent of the 1.6 billion Muslims subscribe to the concept of violent jihad. Millions and millions of Muslims may believe in Islamic eschatology and even believe we are entering into the end times. But they don’t believe violence is the way to achieve it.

Radical Muslim groups like al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, and the Muslim Brotherhood may use violence against Jews and Christians. They want to push them off of Muslim lands. But they differ from apocalyptic Islam. Joel Rosenberg puts it this way. Radical Islam seeks to attack us. Apocalyptic Islam seeks to annihilate us.

Apocalyptic Muslim groups would include the leaders of ISIS (now called the Islamic State) and the top leaders in Iran. They are driven by Muslim prophecies that you can find in the Qur’an and the Hadith. They believe that the End of Days is at hand. They believe that their Islamic messiah will come to establish an Islamic kingdom known as a caliphate. They believe this messiah will implement Sharia law throughout the globe and force everyone to submit to this caliphate.

Joel Rosenberg has found that few world leaders understand these issues. Sadly many of them do not understand the danger of apocalyptic, genocidal Islam. We should pray that they understand because the future of America and the future of the western world depends on it.

Dr. Everett Piper is the President of Oklahoma Wesleyan University and recently wrote to plead with his “colleagues to stand firm for the academy’s millennia-old commitment to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of inquiry, and freedom of thought.” This was a needed commentary for universities that implement “speech codes,” organize “safe spaces,” and allow students and activists to shut down speeches.

He goes on the explain that the “answer to the riots and rebellions that Berkeley and many other college campuses are facing is not found in the tyranny of false tolerance or the ideological safety of trigger warnings. It isn’t found in more restrictions and more legalism.” It is found in the pursuit of truth and the “practice and virtue of love.”

Commentators and even administrators at the University of California like to remind us that Berkeley is the home of the Free Speech Movement. Dr. Piper disagrees. “Human freedom, intellectual or otherwise, was not born in Berkeley, California but rather in a community called Bethlehem some two thousand years ago.” This may sound like a radical statement, but it is not. Christians founded major universities in Europe and were instrumental in founding most of the major universities in the first centuries of this country. For example, the motto for Harvard University is “Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae,” which is Latin for “Truth for Christ and the Church.”

He believes that the freedom that these university administrators seek “finds its home not at a campus near the sandy beaches of our West Coast, but rather in a stable under the stars in ancient Israel.” And how do we find truth? He says that: “Honesty demands that we boldly pursue ideas tested by time, defended by reason, validated by experience, and confirmed by revelation.” This is a formula worth following.

When Bret Stephens wrote his first column to the New York Times last month, he caused quite a stir. If writing a column could be compared to a football game, Stephens was a smart quarterback who caused the opposition to jump offsides.

The title of the column was: “The Climate of Certainty.” He began by reminding us that most pundits were certain that Hillary Clinton would be our next president. He also reminded us that the campaign placed too much “faith in the power of models and algorithms.” He concluded that there is a lesson to this. “We live in a world in which data conveys authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris.”

Then he turned to the subject of climate change. When he applied some of the same lessons to that scientific discussion and debate, he acknowledged that you “can almost hear the heads exploding.” He was correct. Heads did explode. Twitter comments came fast and furious. There was a campaign to cancel subscriptions to the New York Times.

In his column, he makes it clear that he does not “deny climate change or the possibility of the severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism.” That didn’t stop critics from completely misrepresenting what he wrote. The headline in Slate said his column was “Classic Climate Change Denialism.” Think about that. A columnist who does NOT deny climate change is still charged with being a climate change denier.

The reaction to his column proves his point. Stephens was calling for humility and warning about hubris. The twitter posts, the angry letters to the editor, the campaign to cancel subscriptions, and the misrepresentation of his position illustrate the stridency and illogic of the other side. His column forced liberals to jump offsides.

Dennis Prager has been making the case that the chasm between the left and the rest of the country is so unbridgeable that it should be described as a Second Civil War. He usually adds that, “unlike the First Civil War, this war is not violent.” Now he is even removing that disclaimer. He now believes violence is coming.

In once sense you could say that violence is already here. He reminds us that, “Left-wing thugs engage in violence and threats of violence with utter impunity. They shut down speakers at colleges; block highways, bridges and airport terminals; take over college buildings and offices; occupy state capitals; and terrorize individuals at their homes.”

He also explains that, “It’s beginning to dawn on many Americans that mayors, police chiefs and college presidents have no interest in stopping this violence. Left-wing officials sympathize with the lawbreakers, and the police, who rarely sympathize with thugs of any ideology, are ordered to do nothing by emasculated police chiefs.”

Now, you might think that a few of these leaders would change their minds and realize that they must do SOMETHING to protect citizens in society and students on campus. That is unlikely because, “they have made peace with left-wing violence. What they fear is the left-wing media.” Just imagine the media backlash that would rain down on their heads if in protecting citizens and students, anyone in a liberal activist group was injured. They would be pilloried in the press.

This leads to an important question. If these mayors, police chiefs, and college presidents will do little to stop the violence, who will? Left-wing mobs will only be allowed to own the streets for so long before other Americans decide to take matters into their own hands. We can hope that does not happen and plead for restraint. But I think Dennis Prager is right. The Second Civil War could become violent.

Members of Congress who are currently resisting attempts to reform the tax code and reduce regulations should look at the recent Index of Economic Freedom. The United States has the lowest ranking ever in this index. For years, the U.S. was in the top ten. Now it sits at number 17. Countries with a higher ranking include Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland, Estonia, Australia, Chile, and Canada.

Three of the many reasons for America’s decline in economic freedom are debt, taxes, and regulations. Annual deficits and a national debt approaching $20 trillion saddle the country with obligations that reduce its freedom. You can see this in your own life. If you have $30,000 credit card debt, you are less free to buy a new car, refinance your house, or go on a vacation.

The U.S. tax rate is another reason for the country’s decline in economic freedom. The top individual income tax rate is 39.6 percent, and the top corporate tax rate remains among the world’s highest at 35 percent. But even this high tax rate cannot keep up with government spending that last year amounted to 38 percent of GDP.

Burdensome regulations also reduce our freedom. One study concluded that our economy has been burdened with more than 20,000 new regulations since 2008. The added 572,000 pages to the Federal Register place an ever-increasing burden on small businesses. Another study found a net increase in new businesses in the late 1990s but a net loss of businesses in the last part of the first decade of the 21st century.

Will the current administration and Congress turn this around? Little has been said about reducing the debt. But President Trump has proposed tax reform and has used an executive order and other means to slightly reduce the regulatory burden. Perhaps the U.S. will rise in next year’s Index of Economic Freedom.

President Trump has been working to block the regulatory tidal wave that has been crashing on the shores of small businesses over the last decade. The last year President Obama was in office, his administration issued 3,853 final rules. This was the most in the last 11 years. To put all of this in perspective, consider that federal agencies issue 18 rules and regulations for every law approved by Congress.

President Trump has used two strategies to reduce the regulatory burden. He issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to adopt a “two for one” regulatory budget. Bureaucrats must remove two regulations for every new regulation. This puts the emphasis on deregulation rather than rule making.

His other strategy was to use the Congressional Review Act. This law, passed in 1996, allows Congress to reject rules with a majority vote within 60 legislative days of publication. Since many of those rules have not been published, this allows Congress to look back into the Obama administration and even the Bush administration. By mid-April President Trump has already signed his 13th bill repealing regulations using this tool.

An article in the Daily Signal explains “13 Ways Trump Has Rolled Back Government Regulations in His First 100 Days.” Some of the rollbacks provide some relief for the coal mining industry. Others address federal rules affecting college teachers and state education programs. Another removed an Obama administration rule that prevented states from withholding funds from Planned Parenthood.

Congressional candidates and presidential candidates often campaign about deregulation but rarely fulfill those promises in any meaningful way. It appears that President Trump have roll back more regulations than any other president in modern history.

During our Millennial Roundtable discussion on radio, one of the cohosts noticed on his phone that ESPN was laying off 100 people. At the time, I thought there were probably at least two reasons for this executive decision. First, millennials aren’t as likely to watch ESPN since they feel they can get anything they need for free from the Internet. And second, many people have turned off ESPN because their left-wing politics is turning them off. These were two of the major reasons for the layoffs.

The economic reasons for ESPN’s troubles have to do with the fact that many (not just millennials) are cutting the cord for cable. The sports network has lost 12 million subscribers. Also, ESPN overpaid for broadcast rights, which has become a huge problem since many subscribers have left and others stopped watching. Paying too much while you are losing subscribers and have declining ratings is the major reason for the layoffs.

But in addition to the economic reason is a political reason. ESPN executives and on-air talent came to the wrong conclusion that bringing political discussions into the network would improve ESPN’s ratings. That is not what sports viewers wanted. Clay Travis put it this way, “Middle America wants to pop a beer and listen to sports talk, they don’t want to be lectured about why Caitlyn Jenner is a hero, Michael Sam in the new Jackie Robinson of sports, and Colin Kaepernick is the Rosa Parks of football.”

Sean Davis explained the viewers’ frustration: “You want to watch the Lakers game? Okay, but first you’re going to hear about Caitlyn Jenner. Want some NFL highlights? We’ll get to those eventually, but coming up next will be a discussion about how North Carolina is run by racist, homophobic bigots.”

It wasn’t a smart move to try to turn ESPN into MSNBC with sports added. Viewers wanted to watch sports not be lectured about left-wing politics.