Saturday, May 25, 2013

All Around the Web - May 25, 2013

USA Today - Kids access porn sites at 6, begin flirting online at 8 | Read that headline again.

Kids start watching porn from as early as the age of 6, and begin flirting on the Internet from the age of 8, according to a survey of over 19,000 parents worldwide.

What's more, kids are accessing instant messaging and computer games at a much younger age than just a few years ago. At the extreme, 3.45% of kids covered in the analysis used Instant Messaging to chat with friends while 2% of computer game addicts were just 5 years old.

The study results were released exclusively to CyberTruth by Bitdefender. The Bucharest-based antivirus vendor correlated results of an online survey of parents with data compiled from its parental control services, such as which sites parents choose to block, and which sites children access regularly.

Almost a quarter of the kids accounted for in the study had at least one social network account at age 12, while 17% were social media users at 10.

BBC - Is child sponsorship ethical? |

More than nine million children around the world are sponsored by Western donors and a major new report on the work of one aid agency has found that sponsorship does improve children's lives. It has reopened a long and fierce debate over whether this hugely popular form of giving to the poor is either ethical or effective.

There has been very little previous research into whether the $3bn (£2bn) transferred from the rich world to the poor through sponsoring children actually has a measurable impact.

So academics from the University of San Francisco decided to undertake the most wide-ranging study yet in six developing countries - Bolivia, Guatemala, India, Kenya, the Philippines, and Uganda

Sean McDowell - The Genetics of Adam and Eve, The Difficulty with Genesis 1:27-28 |

God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it” (Genesis 1:27-28). 

Difficulty: Doesn’t the science of genetics refute the concept that the entire population of the world came from just one couple?

Explanation: Over the past couple of decades researchers have used “population genetics” to estimate initial population size of the human species. By studying human genetic diversity in the present day, they have tried to extrapolate back to determine the minimum size of the original population of humans necessary to produce the diversity we observe today. Some have argued that it is impossible for civilization to have come from one human couple.

NBC News - Federal government creates more low-wage jobs than Wal-Mart |

The federal government is better at creating low-paying jobs than Wal-Mart and McDonald's combined, according to a new report.

A study released earlier this month from the public policy group Demos states that through various forms of government funding in the private sector, nearly two million people are making $12 an hour or less. The number of workers at Wal-Mart and McDonald's together at $12 an hour or less is currently around 1.5 million, according to the report.

"The sheer number of those workers making so little is surprising," said Amy Traub, a senior policy analyst at Demos and co-author of the study.

Russell Moore - Narnia’s Wardrobe or Magician’s Nephew: Which Comes First? | This is an old article but one worth revisiting.

Before their bedtime each night, I’m reading C.S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe to my three oldest sons. I’m doing this because it’s a great story. But I’m also doing it because Lewis’s Narnia stories are, I believe, what shaped and molded my moral imagination as a child. I believe they are directly part of the means the Spirit used to point me to the truer Narnia in Christ. But by starting with the first book in the series, I realize I’m walking into a debate as well as into a wardrobe.

Some fellow Lewisphiles insist the series begins with The Magician’s Nephew. I disagree, emphatically.

From John Stonestreet

Post a Comment