M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
your ridiculous. Your comment isn’t worthy of a counter argument, it is too stupid.
MaryJohnZ
- Status
MaryJohnZ
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
Listen, I am not going to go over the arguments again. If you want to end the discussion that is fine with me but I realize your colors show through. This was not a real discussion. If anything, you convinced me more that eugenics is alive and that people are strill involved in it. You also show me that some people can be very mean spirited.
I never did quite hear what your response was to my question about how and when you speak out against abortion, infanticide, surrogate motherhood, selective genetic sperm banks, Plaanned Parenthood sex ed. etc…
Would be interested to know if you do make an effort in that area as a scientist.
In Christ,
MaryJohnZ
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
This article had some good points to think about in terms of eugenics and the modern world:
"The true nature of Darwinism is not merely an academic question. For we are moving, with alarming rapidity, from the Age of Darwin the Scientist to the Age of Galton the Inventor. Sir Francis Galton was Darwin’s even more ingenious half-cousin. (Their common grandparent was, not surprisingly, the brilliant Erasmus Darwin.) While Darwin was the hedgehog with one great idea, selection, Galton was the fox with innumerable notions large and small. Galton has as much claim as anybody to being the father of statistics, the dog whistle, fingerprinting, the systematic study of human variation, and the best way to cut a cake so it won’t go stale. Darwin, however, inspired Galton to devise one enormous idea glittering with promise and ominous with danger: eugenics. That’s the attempt to create a better human race by augmenting the slow and uncertain processes of natural and sexual selection with artificial selection.
Humans have always lusted for favoured genes for their future children. (Trust me on this one, because I know – I was turned down for a lot of dates.) Today, however, researchers are learning how to turbocharge evolution in laboratories all over the world.
In the first half of the 20th century, eugenics in action largely meant governments sterilizing or murdering people they didn’t like. (Lenin, Stalin, and Mao slaughtered even more tens of millions in the name of equality than Hitler murdered in the name of inequality. And, as Aleksandr Solzenhistyn has pointed out, the doctrine of “class origins” transformed “egalitarian” mass murder into ethnic genocide since there is no sharp line between family and race.)
Today, however, eugenics consists of couples voluntarily choosing to create life on their own terms. Orthodox Jews have largely freed themselves from the scourge of Tay Sachs disease through genetic testing. Lesbians comparison-shop the Internet for just the right sperm donor. Couples at risk for passing on hereditary diseases to their children are choosing to implant in the mother’s womb only a genetically-screened embryo. High-IQ Ivy League coeds are selling their eggs to infertile women for $5,000 apiece. Dr. Joe Tsien made the cover of Time magazine by genetically engineering mice with better memories. These breakthroughs are only the beginning. Galton’s Age will see far more.
While today’s free-market eugenics is infinitely less sinister on a day-to-day basis than yesterday’s totalitarian eugenics, its ultimate impact could be far greater. The very nature of the human race is up for grabs. Should we therefore ban voluntary eugenics? Regulate it? Ignore it? Subsidize it? To decide, we need to understand the social impact of the various possible changes in our gene frequencies. Fortunately, we have a huge storehouse of data available to base predictions upon: the vast amounts of existing genetic diversity. Unfortunately, we now discourage scholars from examining it.
For example, during the media firestorm following Dr. Tsien’s genetic engineering breakthrough, many worried that rich people could someday pay to have their kids’ IQ’s enhanced. Would having more smart people around help or hurt society as a whole? (I suspect it helps, but then I’m prejudiced: In 1997 some high-IQ cancer doctors saved me from a painful death.) There are lots of ways to study this, but none of them are politically correct. For example, we can investigate whether high-IQ immigrants hurt or help society compared to average-IQ immigrants. Canada discriminates more in favor of intelligent immigrants than the United States. Which country has benefited more?
Yet an awareness of ethnic differences in IQ suggests that the rest of us may have less reason to fear the artificially bright children of the future than they will have reason to fear us. After all, high IQ minorities have frequently had to endure murderous pogroms. Besides the Jews in 1933-1945, there were the Armenians in 1915, educated Cambodians in the 1970s (on ‘egalitarian’ rather than ‘ethnic’ grounds) and the Overseas Chinese as recently as 1998.
Progressives and Third Way centrists are likely to initially insist on outlawing human genetic engineering. Already, professional activists for the disabled worry that genetic engineering will put them out of business by reducing the number of disabled peoples. Feminists and gay male leaders will also soon grow concerned that allowing parents to select embryos will leave them with fewer followers. This is because free market Galtonism will increase the gap between the sexes. Parents will select for square-jawed, ambitious, high testosterone, first-born sons, and lovely, nurturing, high-oestrogen, latter-born daughters. Why? What parents want most from their children are grandchildren, and high-achieving sons, such as business executives, produce far more grandchildren on average than high-achieving daughters. Further, parents will want loving daughters to take care of them in their old age.
Thus, boys will become more masculine and girls more feminine. This will probably reduce the number of homosexuals. Although you are not supposed to say this, scientific studies have confirmed the obvious observation that gay men are more effeminate on average than straight men, just as lesbians tend to be more butch than straight women. And since the major feminist groups, like the National Organization for Women, are to a large extent fronts for lesbians, libertarian eugenics fundamentally threatens institutionalized feminism.
A ban, however, would drive genetics labs and fertility clinics to Caribbean freeports. Still, as shown by President Clinton’s recent heroic victory over that Sudanese aspirin factory, with enough cruise missiles NATO could likely Tomahawk the Cayman Islands into submission. China, however, would be harder to bully. Unencumbered by post-Christian ethics, the Chinese government recently passed a pre-1945-style eugenics law calling for the sterilization of “morons.” If China pursues genetic enhancements while the West bans them, the inevitable result within a few generations would be Chinese economic, and thus military, global hegemony. Thus, those serious about preventing genetic engineering should start planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike on China.
However, the left is likely at some point to flip from opposing voluntary Galtonism to demanding mandatory re-engineering of human nature. Feminists, for example, will decide that instead of parents designing their daughters to appeal to men, the government should redesign men to better appreciate women like themselves. This logic will also revitalize collectivism. Socialism failed, in part, because it conflicts with essential human nature. So, why not change human nature to make Marxism possible? And what better response to the intractable fact of human biodiversity than to eliminate inequality at the genetic level? What could be more equal than a world of clones?
Such speculations illustrate the necessity of our learning soon how genes actually affect society. Our only chance of foreseeing the potential world-shaking impact of Galtonian selection rests in the honest, unstifled study of Darwinian selection. God help us if we don’t start helping ourselves."
isteve.com/Darwin-EnemiesonLeft.htm
MaryJohnZ
"The true nature of Darwinism is not merely an academic question. For we are moving, with alarming rapidity, from the Age of Darwin the Scientist to the Age of Galton the Inventor. Sir Francis Galton was Darwin’s even more ingenious half-cousin. (Their common grandparent was, not surprisingly, the brilliant Erasmus Darwin.) While Darwin was the hedgehog with one great idea, selection, Galton was the fox with innumerable notions large and small. Galton has as much claim as anybody to being the father of statistics, the dog whistle, fingerprinting, the systematic study of human variation, and the best way to cut a cake so it won’t go stale. Darwin, however, inspired Galton to devise one enormous idea glittering with promise and ominous with danger: eugenics. That’s the attempt to create a better human race by augmenting the slow and uncertain processes of natural and sexual selection with artificial selection.
Humans have always lusted for favoured genes for their future children. (Trust me on this one, because I know – I was turned down for a lot of dates.) Today, however, researchers are learning how to turbocharge evolution in laboratories all over the world.
In the first half of the 20th century, eugenics in action largely meant governments sterilizing or murdering people they didn’t like. (Lenin, Stalin, and Mao slaughtered even more tens of millions in the name of equality than Hitler murdered in the name of inequality. And, as Aleksandr Solzenhistyn has pointed out, the doctrine of “class origins” transformed “egalitarian” mass murder into ethnic genocide since there is no sharp line between family and race.)
Today, however, eugenics consists of couples voluntarily choosing to create life on their own terms. Orthodox Jews have largely freed themselves from the scourge of Tay Sachs disease through genetic testing. Lesbians comparison-shop the Internet for just the right sperm donor. Couples at risk for passing on hereditary diseases to their children are choosing to implant in the mother’s womb only a genetically-screened embryo. High-IQ Ivy League coeds are selling their eggs to infertile women for $5,000 apiece. Dr. Joe Tsien made the cover of Time magazine by genetically engineering mice with better memories. These breakthroughs are only the beginning. Galton’s Age will see far more.
While today’s free-market eugenics is infinitely less sinister on a day-to-day basis than yesterday’s totalitarian eugenics, its ultimate impact could be far greater. The very nature of the human race is up for grabs. Should we therefore ban voluntary eugenics? Regulate it? Ignore it? Subsidize it? To decide, we need to understand the social impact of the various possible changes in our gene frequencies. Fortunately, we have a huge storehouse of data available to base predictions upon: the vast amounts of existing genetic diversity. Unfortunately, we now discourage scholars from examining it.
For example, during the media firestorm following Dr. Tsien’s genetic engineering breakthrough, many worried that rich people could someday pay to have their kids’ IQ’s enhanced. Would having more smart people around help or hurt society as a whole? (I suspect it helps, but then I’m prejudiced: In 1997 some high-IQ cancer doctors saved me from a painful death.) There are lots of ways to study this, but none of them are politically correct. For example, we can investigate whether high-IQ immigrants hurt or help society compared to average-IQ immigrants. Canada discriminates more in favor of intelligent immigrants than the United States. Which country has benefited more?
Yet an awareness of ethnic differences in IQ suggests that the rest of us may have less reason to fear the artificially bright children of the future than they will have reason to fear us. After all, high IQ minorities have frequently had to endure murderous pogroms. Besides the Jews in 1933-1945, there were the Armenians in 1915, educated Cambodians in the 1970s (on ‘egalitarian’ rather than ‘ethnic’ grounds) and the Overseas Chinese as recently as 1998.
Progressives and Third Way centrists are likely to initially insist on outlawing human genetic engineering. Already, professional activists for the disabled worry that genetic engineering will put them out of business by reducing the number of disabled peoples. Feminists and gay male leaders will also soon grow concerned that allowing parents to select embryos will leave them with fewer followers. This is because free market Galtonism will increase the gap between the sexes. Parents will select for square-jawed, ambitious, high testosterone, first-born sons, and lovely, nurturing, high-oestrogen, latter-born daughters. Why? What parents want most from their children are grandchildren, and high-achieving sons, such as business executives, produce far more grandchildren on average than high-achieving daughters. Further, parents will want loving daughters to take care of them in their old age.
Thus, boys will become more masculine and girls more feminine. This will probably reduce the number of homosexuals. Although you are not supposed to say this, scientific studies have confirmed the obvious observation that gay men are more effeminate on average than straight men, just as lesbians tend to be more butch than straight women. And since the major feminist groups, like the National Organization for Women, are to a large extent fronts for lesbians, libertarian eugenics fundamentally threatens institutionalized feminism.
A ban, however, would drive genetics labs and fertility clinics to Caribbean freeports. Still, as shown by President Clinton’s recent heroic victory over that Sudanese aspirin factory, with enough cruise missiles NATO could likely Tomahawk the Cayman Islands into submission. China, however, would be harder to bully. Unencumbered by post-Christian ethics, the Chinese government recently passed a pre-1945-style eugenics law calling for the sterilization of “morons.” If China pursues genetic enhancements while the West bans them, the inevitable result within a few generations would be Chinese economic, and thus military, global hegemony. Thus, those serious about preventing genetic engineering should start planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike on China.
However, the left is likely at some point to flip from opposing voluntary Galtonism to demanding mandatory re-engineering of human nature. Feminists, for example, will decide that instead of parents designing their daughters to appeal to men, the government should redesign men to better appreciate women like themselves. This logic will also revitalize collectivism. Socialism failed, in part, because it conflicts with essential human nature. So, why not change human nature to make Marxism possible? And what better response to the intractable fact of human biodiversity than to eliminate inequality at the genetic level? What could be more equal than a world of clones?
Such speculations illustrate the necessity of our learning soon how genes actually affect society. Our only chance of foreseeing the potential world-shaking impact of Galtonian selection rests in the honest, unstifled study of Darwinian selection. God help us if we don’t start helping ourselves."
isteve.com/Darwin-EnemiesonLeft.htm
MaryJohnZ
D
drpmjhess
Guest
MaryJohnZ, I’m sorry you find the Catholic virtue of charity so hard to practice!
Petrus
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
That’s no surprise. As you learned, the facts don’t go the way you’d like them to be.
Mary, everything everyone posts here, is an illumination on their character. Yours, mine, everyone’s. But if you think my reliance on facts is wrong, you’ll have to find some facts to support your case.
Yes, but as you learned, it’s not scientists, who debunked the sort of eugenics that inspired Hitler. If you want a better understanding why, you might want to read Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man. But it won’t offer you much comfort for your beliefs, even as it does to modern racist and determist eugenic ideas what Punnett’s calculations did to classic eugenics.
“Mean-spirited” would be a very charitable description for the libels Ben Stein committed.
I’ve been on a picket line. I’ve shared my beliefs with acquaintences. I vote my conscience. Sex ed, of course, is not the same thing as the others. Nowhere does God say that people should be ignorant.
Can’t do that. Science can’t inform one about values and ethics. I do it as a Christian, though.
That’s the way it’s supposed to be.
I
Icarus
Guest
Petrus…
I suppose that if the plumbers created the agent, you’d have a point to make.
I suppose that if the plumbers created the agent, you’d have a point to make.
I
Icarus
Guest
This response is a much better example of Charity.
P.S
I might add….I didn’t know it was exclusively a Catholic virtue.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
On Zyklon B, used in the gas chambers.
No scientists, though. Are you now going to claim that business kills people?
It wasn’t plumbers, it was businessmen. They manufactured the agent. And it was first prepared by a chemical engineer as a pesticide (still used for that, in some places). One or two businessmen seem to have been aware of the use to which it was being put, and sold it anyway. One of them was hanged for that crime.
No scientists, though. Are you now going to claim that business kills people?
I
Icarus
Guest
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
…Sex ed, of course, is not the same thing as the others. Nowhere does God say that people should be ignorant.
so you would support the type of 'sex ed" described in the following video:
parentsfortruth.org/video/index.php?code=ILAMP
As far as using fact, I suppose any information I post you will just describe in general as editorial any way, like the article on the history of eugenics from EWTN…
I just posted a long piece that had ‘facts’ in it. So your accusation is not true. I have been posting articles, infact more than you have. You make statements but rarely have links to sites to support your statements.
Since God created the universe and all things 'seen and unseen", His laws govern all those things as well. As a scientist who studies the natural world you are under more responsibility, not less, to integrate the world of faith ( including ethics) with the world of reason and to show others how they are related.
recently the Pope said poluting the environment was on the list of
cardinal sins, in my mind that includes the polution of the unseen world of the spirit with false ideas as well as polluting the real world with chemicals or debris. There are sins of neglect and ommission as well as commission and if you have knowledge of things as a scientist and do not apply them or warn others of ill effects then you have at the very least committed a sin of ommission in that area.
The above video would be an example of polluting a young person’s mind and spirit by encouraging them on a wrong path and implying it is acceptable to take that path. If you have knowledge of the dangers of that path and do not block it or try to remove the material encouraging that, then you are implicit in the resulting situation which right now includes 1 out of 4 teens having different forms of STDs, raising the odds of failed marriages for many teens, possibly even encouraging actions leading to early death or disabilities… Since you are a scientist you have more knowledge and awareness and credibility to speak out at a school board meeting and stop things.At any rate you will have to explain to God why you failed to do so.
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
so you would support the type of 'sex ed" described in the following video:
parentsfortruth.org/video/index.php?code=ILAMP
As far as using fact, I suppose any information I post you will just describe in general as editorial any way, like the article on the history of eugenics from EWTN…
I just posted a long piece that had ‘facts’ in it. So your accusation is not true. I have been posting articles, infact more than you have. You make statements but rarely have links to sites to support your statements.
Since God created the universe and all things 'seen and unseen", His laws govern all those things as well. As a scientist who studies the natural world you are under more responsibility, not less, to integrate the world of faith ( including ethics) with the world of reason and to show others how they are related.
recently the Pope said poluting the environment was on the list of
cardinal sins, in my mind that includes the polution of the unseen world of the spirit with false ideas as well as polluting the real world with chemicals or debris. There are sins of neglect and ommission as well as commission and if you have knowledge of things as a scientist and do not apply them or warn others of ill effects then you have at the very least committed a sin of ommission in that area.
The above video would be an example of polluting a young person’s mind and spirit by encouraging them on a wrong path and implying it is acceptable to take that path. If you have knowledge of the dangers of that path and do not block it or try to remove the material encouraging that, then you are implicit in the resulting situation which right now includes 1 out of 4 teens having different forms of STDs, raising the odds of failed marriages for many teens, possibly even encouraging actions leading to early death or disabilities… Since you are a scientist you have more knowledge and awareness and credibility to speak out at a school board meeting and stop things.At any rate you will have to explain to God why you failed to do so.
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
…Sex ed, of course, is not the same thing as the others. Nowhere does God say that people should be ignorant.
I can do it as a Christian, however. As Paul says in Romans:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
…Sex ed, of course, is not the same thing as the others. Nowhere does God say that people should be ignorant.
I would support the sort of sexual education that would stress abstinence, but explain the mechanisms by which pregnancy and STDs are caused, and how to avoid them. Why? Because the evidence shows that fewer pregnancies and STDs result that way.
No facts there; mostly the same kind of erroneous assumptions you expressed earlier. As you learned, Darwinists removed any scientific support for eugenics.
In this world, it’s called “nature.” But science can only study that small part of His creation.
Not as a scientist. People (as the Pope said) who attempt to use science in that way are trying to take science beyond its proper boundaries.
I can do it as a Christian, however. As Paul says in Romans:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
Like your people promoting eugenics? Aren’t Darwinists then to be commended for debunking eugenics?
You are conflating what I know as a person with what I can know as a scientist. Science can’t deal with matters of ethics or morals or faith.
I would be entirely in favor of teaching students how to avoid STDs. I certainly would stress abstinence as the only sure method, but I would tell them that some forms of sex are more dangerous than others. Just as I oppose drunkeness, I would tell people that they would compound the sin by driving, because this would greatly increase the likelihood of hurting other people.
Those who would simply tell a person not to drink, and fail to tell them that drinking and driving was worse, are the ones who would have something to explain to God.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian, concerning Zyklon B:
It wasn’t plumbers, it was businessmen. They manufactured the agent. And it was first prepared by a chemical engineer as a pesticide (still used for that, in some places). One or two businessmen seem to have been aware of the use to which it was being put, and sold it anyway. One of them was hanged for that crime.
No scientists, though. Are you now going to claim that business kills people?
This seems to have degenerated into “everyone is complicit” which, of course ends up as “no one is guilty.” That seems to me to be the second great evil Ben Stein has committed. He is trivializing the Holocaust by using it as a stick with which to attack his enemies.
He seems to have no integrity at all.
It wasn’t plumbers, it was businessmen. They manufactured the agent. And it was first prepared by a chemical engineer as a pesticide (still used for that, in some places). One or two businessmen seem to have been aware of the use to which it was being put, and sold it anyway. One of them was hanged for that crime.
No scientists, though. Are you now going to claim that business kills people?
Funny then, how nations with strong business cultures have longer life expectancies for their people. Wouldn’t that mean that business protects life?
This seems to have degenerated into “everyone is complicit” which, of course ends up as “no one is guilty.” That seems to me to be the second great evil Ben Stein has committed. He is trivializing the Holocaust by using it as a stick with which to attack his enemies.
He seems to have no integrity at all.
I
Icarus
Guest
Can anyone tell me why this site is infested with LIBS & Homosexuals …75%+?
Why do you suppose that is?
Why do you suppose that is?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Well, libertarian, because it’s a Catholic board, and freedom is a value important to God.
Homosexual? Sorry, you’re going to have to speak for yourself on that one, bub.
R
ribozyme
Guest
No, this site is infested with conservatives. But that’s what I should expect here and I shouldn’t complain about that.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
COLOR=“Red”]
mary
I guess you didn’t watch the utube video which describes 'comprehensive sex education".
Comprehensive sex ed is responsible for:
Nearly 25 percent (1 in 4) of sexually active teens have a sexually transmitted disease.
· One in five children over age 12 tests positive for Type II herpes, and teens today are five times more likely to have herpes than teens in the 1970s.
· Nearly one in ten teen girls has chlamydia, which can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease and/or infertility.
· Condoms don’t protect against human papilloma virus (HPV), which is directly responsible for 99.7 percent of cervical cancer cases and the deaths of nearly 5,000 women each year.1
Barbarian
As you learned, Darwinists removed any scientific support for eugenics.
Mary
If Darwin has so debunked eugenics then–
You can argue that the Darwin people disproved some approaches to eugenics, but the eugenics movement began with Darwin and it continues, with or without the support of the Darwin theories…
Barbarian:
You are conflating what I know as a person with what I can know as a scientist. Science can’t deal with matters of ethics or morrals or faith’__________________________________________
Mary:
The facts of science, because it studies the nature which comes from God should support ethics in every way when honestly interpreted.As a scientist you use science to shed light on ethics:
all.org/abac/cwk004.htm
"The modern day assault on Human Embryology began in 1973 in the oral arguments of Roe v. Wade, and in the majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun [4]. He wrote: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins”. He referred to the “disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology” as being “unable to arrive at any consensus.” It appeared he was talking about biological life by inferring that “medicine” could define its beginning. But, then, Blackmun said the following: “There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics.” This was as if to say that science had not progressed since 300 B.C. Clearly, Blackmun conflated biological life with philosophical life, even though biological life, per se was never referenced in his decision.
During oral arguments, in the second hearing before the Supreme Court, Robert Flowers, arguing for appellants, clearly stated the position of the State of Texas: “Human life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy.” However, Justice Blackmun then asked Flowers if that was “a medical question.” Flowers then compromised his position by legitimizing Blackmun’s restating Flowers’ statement as a question, and said it (referring to the now accepted question when it was not a question at all) should be decided by “a legislative decision.” In one fell swoop Flowers destroyed the scientific base of his testimony.
honor."
(…)
Clearly, Robert Flowers was not prepared to argue the biological life of the new individual human being, or to force the Justices to be consistent and cogent with their questions and/or statements.
In this case, was the behavior of the Supreme Court Justices disingenuous, intellectually dishonest or just plain ignorant? Asking a question like this seems to apply a label of opprobrium; but, if so, it is richly deserved because the facts of science were readily available to the Justices who are staffed with an army of law clerks and assistants who could easily have obtained the vital scientific facts.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services of Missouri
In the Webster case, adjudicated in October, 1988, an amici curiae brief of 167 distinguished scientists and physicians, including 11 Nobel Laureates, wrote in their summary of argument: “There is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception, at a given stage of fetal development, or at birth”! 5].
all.org/abac/cwk004.htm
God Bless, maryJohnZ
mary
I guess you didn’t watch the utube video which describes 'comprehensive sex education".
Comprehensive sex ed is responsible for:
Nearly 25 percent (1 in 4) of sexually active teens have a sexually transmitted disease.
· One in five children over age 12 tests positive for Type II herpes, and teens today are five times more likely to have herpes than teens in the 1970s.
· Nearly one in ten teen girls has chlamydia, which can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease and/or infertility.
· Condoms don’t protect against human papilloma virus (HPV), which is directly responsible for 99.7 percent of cervical cancer cases and the deaths of nearly 5,000 women each year.1
Barbarian
As you learned, Darwinists removed any scientific support for eugenics.
Mary
If Darwin has so debunked eugenics then–
You can argue that the Darwin people disproved some approaches to eugenics, but the eugenics movement began with Darwin and it continues, with or without the support of the Darwin theories…
Barbarian:
You are conflating what I know as a person with what I can know as a scientist. Science can’t deal with matters of ethics or morrals or faith’__________________________________________
Mary:
The facts of science, because it studies the nature which comes from God should support ethics in every way when honestly interpreted.As a scientist you use science to shed light on ethics:
all.org/abac/cwk004.htm
"The modern day assault on Human Embryology began in 1973 in the oral arguments of Roe v. Wade, and in the majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun [4]. He wrote: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins”. He referred to the “disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology” as being “unable to arrive at any consensus.” It appeared he was talking about biological life by inferring that “medicine” could define its beginning. But, then, Blackmun said the following: “There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics.” This was as if to say that science had not progressed since 300 B.C. Clearly, Blackmun conflated biological life with philosophical life, even though biological life, per se was never referenced in his decision.
During oral arguments, in the second hearing before the Supreme Court, Robert Flowers, arguing for appellants, clearly stated the position of the State of Texas: “Human life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy.” However, Justice Blackmun then asked Flowers if that was “a medical question.” Flowers then compromised his position by legitimizing Blackmun’s restating Flowers’ statement as a question, and said it (referring to the now accepted question when it was not a question at all) should be decided by “a legislative decision.” In one fell swoop Flowers destroyed the scientific base of his testimony.
honor."
(…)
Clearly, Robert Flowers was not prepared to argue the biological life of the new individual human being, or to force the Justices to be consistent and cogent with their questions and/or statements.
In this case, was the behavior of the Supreme Court Justices disingenuous, intellectually dishonest or just plain ignorant? Asking a question like this seems to apply a label of opprobrium; but, if so, it is richly deserved because the facts of science were readily available to the Justices who are staffed with an army of law clerks and assistants who could easily have obtained the vital scientific facts.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services of Missouri
In the Webster case, adjudicated in October, 1988, an amici curiae brief of 167 distinguished scientists and physicians, including 11 Nobel Laureates, wrote in their summary of argument: “There is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception, at a given stage of fetal development, or at birth”! 5].
all.org/abac/cwk004.htm
God Bless, maryJohnZ
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
This seems to have degenerated into “everyone is complicit” which, of course ends up as “no one is guilty.” That seems to me to be the second great evil Ben Stein has committed. He is trivializing the Holocaust by using it as a stick with which to attack his enemies.
He seems to have no integrity at all.
Yes, I would say that everyone is/was complicit who worked with the Nazis just as everyone today who supports abortion is ‘guilty’ either by being passive about the issue or by outwardly supporting abortion. None of us can say how God sees that guilt, whether serious or not, according to the knowledge the person has of the evil. But if your knowledge is greater and you have more
prestige and ability to speak out then you have more responsibility to do so.
In Christ,
MaryJohnz
He seems to have no integrity at all.
Yes, I would say that everyone is/was complicit who worked with the Nazis just as everyone today who supports abortion is ‘guilty’ either by being passive about the issue or by outwardly supporting abortion. None of us can say how God sees that guilt, whether serious or not, according to the knowledge the person has of the evil. But if your knowledge is greater and you have more
prestige and ability to speak out then you have more responsibility to do so.
In Christ,
MaryJohnz
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
You asked for my opinion about the issue. I told you. If you want to argue with the guy who did the video, see him.
In fact, “abstinence only” became the method of choice, as the present administration heavily promoted it. The result, as you see is more STD.
**A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration’s social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.
Authorized by Congress in 1997, the study followed 2000 children from elementary or middle school into high school. The children lived in four communities – two urban, two rural. All of the children received the family life services available in their community, in addition, slightly more than half of them also received abstinence-only education.
By the end of the study, when the average child was just shy of 17, half of both groups had remained abstinent. The sexually active teenagers had sex the first time at about age 15. Less than a quarter of them, in both groups, reported using a condom every time they had sex. More than a third of both groups had two or more partners.**
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html**
Barbarian observes:
As you learned, Darwinists removed any scientific support for eugenics.
Darwinists. Darwin had no idea of genetics; that wasn’t known at the time. Darwinists, from the Modern Synthesis, showed that classical eugenics could not work.
No. Darwin gave no support to those who thought that killing off or sterilizing people could help.
In fact, he deplored the abuse of groups of people by those who considered themselves “better.” He had a huge fight with the Captain of the Beagle, (a creationist) over that issue.
It was your people, not scientists, who dreamed it up.
Barbarian observes:
You are conflating what I know as a person with what I can know as a scientist. Science can’t deal with matters of ethics or morrals or faith
Sorry, it can’t. Those who have tried to apply science to ethical questions have committed monsterous atrocities. Nature is a very bad place to find moral lessons.
"The modern day assault on Human Embryology began in 1973 in the oral arguments of Roe v. Wade, and in the majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun [4]. He wrote: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins”. He referred to the “disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology” as being “unable to arrive at any consensus.” It appeared he was talking about biological life by inferring that “medicine” could define its beginning. But, then, Blackmun said the following: “There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics.” This was as if to say that science had not progressed since 300 B.C. Clearly, Blackmun conflated biological life with philosophical life, even though biological life, per se was never referenced in his decision.
Blackmun was a lawyer, not a scientist. The Stoics were philosophers. And in the middle ages, many considered life to begin when the first quickening was noticed. None of this is science. You seem to want to call anyone you don’t like, a “scientist.” The word appears to mean “boogyman” to you.
Life, BTW, exists before conception; what happens at conception is the fusion of gamets to make a genetically complete human individual.
Whether or not it’s a human at that point is a theological/philosophical matter. I believe that it is, because of my belief in God. But I cannot demonstrate that with science.**
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
But as you learned, the people Stein libeled in his movie were the ones who debunked the Nazi program. And yet Stein pretended they were the basis for that program. Do you get some idea why people regard him as such a sleazy person? He was, as you know, a speechwriter for Nixon; the habit seems hard to shake.
I think this is what Stein’s libel is all about; science has been spectacularly successful at some things, but outside of its area, it is completely unable to do anything at all.
If you want prestige, find an NBA star. More people will listen to him than to me.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Barbarian, my point was merely that scientists who developed the theory of evolution are no more guilty of holocaust deaths than are plumbers, or the carpenters who built the barracks. If plumbers and carpenters are not guilty, then neither are scientists!
- Status