Evolution and Big Bang real

Apparently, Pope Francis believes that the theories of the Big Bang and of evolution are real.  Or so, Adam Withnall understands, based on an article published by the Independent today.

The Pope was speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.  He said that God is not a magician.  He did not create the world by waving a magic wand, unlike the impression that some have from their understanding of Genesis.  Instead, God created and gave the system some "internal laws" with which the creation was able to progressively develop.

So evolution and the Big Bang theories describe the progression, and these theories are not inconsistent with what the Bible says about creation.

Would you agree with the Pope's point of view?

Do you think he is just trying to be politically correct?  The Catholic church has been historically opposed to scientific views, as it persecuted Galileo for his views.  As Catholic schools need to promote the popular culture of science, is the Catholic church putting up hypothesis to make their views consistent?

Are the theories of the Big Bang and evolution even correct?  The scientific method can change its present conclusions when more information comes to light, if the extra information correct current views.

Would God reject the present scientific theories?  Do the theories limit God, or describe what He has done?

What do you believe?  Why?

Stop immigration

Should we stop people from migrating to our country?  Why or why not?  What do you think?

I think it is a pat on the back for a country if people want to migrate to it.  People generally leave countries that they don't think are doing well to migrate to countries that are perceived to be better.  Better in terms of economy, stability or opportunity.  But some people who love their land would not choose to leave - or would choose to return when the situation is better.

Some migrants do not remain loyal to their host country, as they long for their original homeland when the situation has improved.  Just like refugees do, but without being as desperate about it.

Jonathan Portes wrote some valid points about immigration in the context of the UK:

• Migration is not a new phenomenon.  It has been around since the Roman days, when treaties allowed people freedom of movement for the purpose of labour, capital, goods and services.
• Many fear that migration would negatively affect jobs and wages for the citizens already in the country.  Actually, the impact on jobs and wages is very small, when compared to technological change, employers’ increasing demand for skilled workers and the positive impact of the national minimum wage.
• This is because as more people move, there also becomes greater demand for goods and services.  So economically, it isn't too many people for the same number of jobs, as the number of jobs will also increase.
•  Migrants abuse the social welfare system ... but so do the original citizens.  Actually, migrants are half as likely to abuse the help system as compared to the locals, just that the locals are less talked about when they do it.
• Migrants, in general, tend to be more within the age for employment compared to the rest of the population.  Ie. they are more likely to be contributing to society than the rest of society itself.
• Migrants put pressure to the public services, but they also contribute to it.
• Even so, migrants do cause problems, as population growth change the needs for housing and transport services that need to keep up with the growth, but are less quick to do so.

Do these arguments make sense to you?  Do you favour migration or are you against it?  Do you have any suggestions about how to improve the situation?

Are we just afraid of the unknown, even when there is no need to?

I think that to a large degree, we are selfish - trying to protect our personal good, rather than that of our society.  This causes perceptions that are not really true as our biases come out.  These perceptions cause some of us to migrate, and others of us to harbour some feelings against migrants.

Would you agree?

Is this an example of a problem that arises from sin?

Why some people do well

Apparently, our sense of success is related to our perception of ourselves, and how willing we are to struggle.

Tracy Cutchlow wrote that children grow up with one of two possible mentalities:

Either that "if you have to work hard, you don't have the ability", or that "the more you challenge yourself, the smarter you become".

Those with the former attitude limit themselves as they fear being laughed at, as they consider themselves weaker, less clever, and less able compared to others.  Those with the latter attitude do not compare themselves with others as much, but seek to improve and to extend their boundaries.

And people can change between these two mindsets over time, as people are influenced by their teachers, their parents and their peers.

Would you agree with Tracy?  Why or why not?

Is positive attitude all that one needs?  How can this be nurtured?

Meanwhile, Joanne Lipman wrote of a teacher called "Mr K", who believed that "praise makes you weak while stress makes you strong".  Apparently, Mr K's method of teaching was such that his best complement was "not bad".  Mr K believed in hard work, and in pushing his students in ways contrary to the mindset of the positive parenting techniques today.

So, which is the right method to teach and train?  The carrot or the stick?  The push method, or the pull?  What is effective?

How does God deal with us?  How do we prefer to be dealt with?

How would you teach?

Why does God bless you?

I was recently offered a new job.  When telling a friend about it, she told me that she knew I would get it.  Her reason was that she knew that God would bless me because of the things I have been doing diligently for God.

Really?  Is this why God blesses someone?  What do you think?

Is it because of our merit that we are blessed?  Is it because we have worked hard that we get the results we desire?  Or is it our service for God that lets us gain favour?

Perhaps I got the job because my friend gave me a good reference.  Perhaps it was something at the job interview.

Perhaps, God blessed me because He chose to - not because of anything I have done or did not do.

What do you think?  Why?

How should women dress

Should women dress in a burqa, that covers every part of their body - even the eyes are veiled?

Or should women dress in just a band-aid?  Well, maybe, not quite "just a band-aid"; I was amused to read of clothing being described as such.  The author was referring to clothing so skimpy that it showed off so much fat and skin that it wasn't a pretty sight.

Perhaps both of these types of clothing are extremes in how much a woman should or should not cover up.  Perhaps something in between is more appropriate.  However, the type and style of clothing is also influenced by society and culture.  Also, elements of geography (how cold or warm it gets, whether an area has four seasons or only one), technology (smart clothes, microfibres, etc. are not available where the technology is not available), religion, school, etc. influence the culture.

Should women have the right to choose their clothes?  Is there enough unbiased information out there for her to choose well and wisely?

I understand that some women take pride in wearing burqa, whereas others see the burqa as a form of oppression.  Who is right?

Is there a right or wrong answer to this question about modesty, style, and comfort?

What do you believe?  Why?

Would God or her husband or her father have anything to say about her choice of dress?  Do they have any right to say anything?