T
The_Barbarian
Guest
The difference is, Ben Stein doesn’t feel threatened by, and inferior to, plumbers.
So he feels no need to libel them.
So he feels no need to libel them.
- Status
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Barbarian, here’s a hypothesis: what if Ben Stein is not so much the evil contriving Nixon speech writer you propose, but instead he’s merely the poorly educated sucker needed by Premise Media (or the Discovery Institute or whoever backs them)? They needed someone with dry media appeal; they needed a Jew for credibility with the holocaust nonsense; they needed someone who knew nothing about science; they deliberately didn’t want a Christian so that they could play the -this-is-not-about-religion card. Ben Stein met all their criteria.
Petrus
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
Form the Sacred Congregation of the Faith on morals in science:
On the one hand, it would be illusory to claim that scientific research and its applications are morally neutral; on the other hand one cannot derive criteria for guidance from mere technical efficiency, from research’s possible usefulness to some at the expense of others, or, worse still, from prevailing ideologies. Thus science and technology require, for their own intrinsic meaning, an unconditional respect for the fundamental criteria of the moral law: that is to say, they must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.[7]
…
The natural moral law expresses and lays down the purposes, rights and duties which are based upon the bodily and spiritual nature of the human person. Therefore this law cannot be thought of as simply a set of norms on the biological level; rather it must be defined as the rational order whereby man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and actions and in particular to make use of his own body.[10]
A first consequence can be deduced from these principles: an intervention on the human body affects not only the tissues, the organs and their functions but also involves the person himself on different levels. It involves, therefore, perhaps in an implicit but nonetheless real way, a moral significance and responsibility. Pope John Paul II forcefully reaffirmed this to the World Medical Association when he said: Each human person, in his absolutely unique singularity, is constituted not only by his spirit, but by his body as well. Thus, in the body and through the body, one touches the person himself in his concrete reality. To respect the dignity of man consequently amounts to safeguarding this identity of the man <corpore et anima unus,> as the Second Vatican Council says (Gaudium et spes, no. 14, par. 1). It is on the basis of this anthropological vision that one is to find the fundamental criteria for decision-making in the case of procedures which are not strictly therapeutic, as, for example, those aimed at the improvement of the human biological condition."[11]
Applied biology and medicine work together for the integral good of human life when they come to the aid of a person stricken by illness and infirmity and when they respect his or her dignity as a creature of God. No biologist or doctor can reasonably claim, by virtue of his scientific competence, to be able to decide about people’s origin and destiny. This norm must be applied in a particular way in the field of sexuality and procreation, in which man and woman actualize the fundamental values of love and life.
God, who is love and life, has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to share in a special way in His mystery of personal communion and in His work as Creator and Father.[12] For this reason marriage possesses specific goods and values in its union and in procreation which cannot be likened to those existing in lower forms of life. Such values and meanings are of the personal order and determine from the moral point of view the meaning and limits of artificial interventions regarding procreation and the origin of human life. These interventions are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life.
sound to me like the church places great emphasis on morals when scientific approaches are applied to anything that has to do with the human person.
on the begining of human life:
"On its part, the Magisterium of the Church offers to human reason in this field too the light of Revelation: the doctrine concerning man taught by the Magisterium contains many elements which throw light on the problems being faced here.
From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way because man is the only creature on earth that God has wished for himself[16] and the spiritual soul of each man is “immediately created” by God[17]; his whole being bears the image of the Creator. Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves “the creative action of God”[18] and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end.19] God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.[20]
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHUMAN.HTM
In Christ,
MaryJohnZ
On the one hand, it would be illusory to claim that scientific research and its applications are morally neutral; on the other hand one cannot derive criteria for guidance from mere technical efficiency, from research’s possible usefulness to some at the expense of others, or, worse still, from prevailing ideologies. Thus science and technology require, for their own intrinsic meaning, an unconditional respect for the fundamental criteria of the moral law: that is to say, they must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.[7]
…
The natural moral law expresses and lays down the purposes, rights and duties which are based upon the bodily and spiritual nature of the human person. Therefore this law cannot be thought of as simply a set of norms on the biological level; rather it must be defined as the rational order whereby man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and actions and in particular to make use of his own body.[10]
A first consequence can be deduced from these principles: an intervention on the human body affects not only the tissues, the organs and their functions but also involves the person himself on different levels. It involves, therefore, perhaps in an implicit but nonetheless real way, a moral significance and responsibility. Pope John Paul II forcefully reaffirmed this to the World Medical Association when he said: Each human person, in his absolutely unique singularity, is constituted not only by his spirit, but by his body as well. Thus, in the body and through the body, one touches the person himself in his concrete reality. To respect the dignity of man consequently amounts to safeguarding this identity of the man <corpore et anima unus,> as the Second Vatican Council says (Gaudium et spes, no. 14, par. 1). It is on the basis of this anthropological vision that one is to find the fundamental criteria for decision-making in the case of procedures which are not strictly therapeutic, as, for example, those aimed at the improvement of the human biological condition."[11]
Applied biology and medicine work together for the integral good of human life when they come to the aid of a person stricken by illness and infirmity and when they respect his or her dignity as a creature of God. No biologist or doctor can reasonably claim, by virtue of his scientific competence, to be able to decide about people’s origin and destiny. This norm must be applied in a particular way in the field of sexuality and procreation, in which man and woman actualize the fundamental values of love and life.
God, who is love and life, has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to share in a special way in His mystery of personal communion and in His work as Creator and Father.[12] For this reason marriage possesses specific goods and values in its union and in procreation which cannot be likened to those existing in lower forms of life. Such values and meanings are of the personal order and determine from the moral point of view the meaning and limits of artificial interventions regarding procreation and the origin of human life. These interventions are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life.
sound to me like the church places great emphasis on morals when scientific approaches are applied to anything that has to do with the human person.
on the begining of human life:
"On its part, the Magisterium of the Church offers to human reason in this field too the light of Revelation: the doctrine concerning man taught by the Magisterium contains many elements which throw light on the problems being faced here.
From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way because man is the only creature on earth that God has wished for himself[16] and the spiritual soul of each man is “immediately created” by God[17]; his whole being bears the image of the Creator. Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves “the creative action of God”[18] and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end.19] God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.[20]
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHUMAN.HTM
In Christ,
MaryJohnZ
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
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.
quaqua.org/eugenics.htm
Your source says that the core ideas of eugenics preceeded Darwin by thousands of years, and the first eugenics program was implemented before Darwin was born.
Philosophers, lawyers, scientists, politicians can all claim to have some part in the eugenics movement:
**The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; **
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man
And yet you seem to desperately want to tie Darwin and science to this creation of non-scientists.
Arthur Caplan, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, put it best:
"To lay blame for the Holocaust upon Charles Darwin is to engage in a form of Holocaust denial that should forever make Ben Stein the subject of scorn not because of his nudnik concern that evolution somehow undermines morality but because in this contemptible movie he is willing to subvert the key reason why the Holocaust took place — racism — to serve his own ideological end. Expelled indeed."
And that’s the best summation I’ve seen so far.
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.
No, it’s a matter of public record. Stein lied about it. As you learned, Darwinists had demolished the arguments later used by the Nazis, long before they came to power.
That would be rather strange, since it was Darwinists who debunked the classic eugenics movement. You cut and pasted from people who knew no more than you did about it. They seem to be completely unaware that Darwinist like Punnett, Morgan, and Muller attacked classical eugenics. But you know better, now. As you also learned, the Nazi program came from medieval sources; Martin Luther had advocated most of what the Nazis did.
That’s like saying “it doesn’t mean Ronald Reagan supported communism.”
Free free to show me where Darwin said anything like that.
You’ve learned the truth, but you seem unwilling to admit it.
quaqua.org/eugenics.htm
Your source says that the core ideas of eugenics preceeded Darwin by thousands of years, and the first eugenics program was implemented before Darwin was born.
Philosophers, lawyers, scientists, politicians can all claim to have some part in the eugenics movement:
I notice that you deleted the emphasis on “natural” when you cut and pasted that one. I restored the context to make it clear what the source meant.
Wallace was, as you might know, co-discoverer of natural selection, and jointly presented the paper with Darwin. He was not quite a Darwinian, but his ideas, as you see, are diametrically opposed to eugenics. His argument was that humans were essentially different than other animals, and precisely because of their nature, eugenic practices would not work.
Darwin’s response:
**The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; **
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man
Ya think? Not only did he find it morally repugnant, his theory eventually showed it was all pointless cruelty.
By now, you really have no excuse for repeating lies like that. As you saw, Darwinians pointed out the logical insupportability of eugenics, and Darwin himself attacked the very rationale for it.
And yet you seem to desperately want to tie Darwin and science to this creation of non-scientists.
Arthur Caplan, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, put it best:
"To lay blame for the Holocaust upon Charles Darwin is to engage in a form of Holocaust denial that should forever make Ben Stein the subject of scorn not because of his nudnik concern that evolution somehow undermines morality but because in this contemptible movie he is willing to subvert the key reason why the Holocaust took place — racism — to serve his own ideological end. Expelled indeed."
And that’s the best summation I’ve seen so far.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Thus science and technology require, for their own intrinsic meaning, an unconditional respect for the fundamental criteria of the moral law: that is to say, they must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.
Very good, Mary, but you seem not to understand what the Church is saying here.
Science is not the source of good; only moral law, and a respect for a person’s right and sacred worth is able to make science good.
This is outside of science. Do you understand why this has to be so?
Very good, Mary, but you seem not to understand what the Church is saying here.
Science is not the source of good; only moral law, and a respect for a person’s right and sacred worth is able to make science good.
This is outside of science. Do you understand why this has to be so?
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
Barbarian:
Wallace was, as you might know, co-discoverer of natural selection, and jointly presented the paper with Darwin. He was not quite a Darwinian, but his ideas, as you see, are diametrically opposed to eugenics. His argument was that humans were essentially different than other animals, and precisely because of their nature, eugenic practices would not work.
mary:
No, I dod not see that Darwins work is diametrically opposed to eugenics. If that were so why did his own son promoted eugenics?
Barbarian:
Darwin’s response:
**The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; **Charles Darwin The Descent of Man
mary:
How do you interpret the meaning of his last sentence when he speaks of the 'bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind"…sound rather cold and if it is not eugenics, it would lead to thinking that ways of eliminating the weak would be good.
Barbarian:
Arthur Caplan, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, put it best:
"To lay blame for the Holocaust upon Charles Darwin is to engage in a form of Holocaust denial that should forever make Ben Stein the subject of scorn not because of his nudnik concern that evolution somehow undermines morality but because in this contemptible movie he is willing to subvert the key reason why the Holocaust took place — racism — to serve his own ideological end. Expelled indeed."
And that’s the best summation I’ve seen so far.
Mary:
Summing up with an editorial piece are we? So much for the emphasis on facts.
How about the fact that there is a current scientist named Dawkins who is still willing to apply principles of social Darwinism to modern day eugenics:
creationontheweb.com/content/view/4783/
Dawkins himself now says that the eugenic ideas that fuelled the Nazi’s thinking, including their notorious ‘racial hygiene’ and ‘breeding superhumans’ programs, may not be all that bad, after all. In a letter to the editor of the Sunday Herald (Scotland), Dawkins says that while one would not want to be seen agreeing with Hitler, eugenics is practical and desirable. He says that ‘if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?’1
Dawkins and other prominent evolutionists increasingly apply their particular religious worldviews to issues such as the genetic improvement of the human species which, they say, is a logical consequence of wanting to use genetic manipulation to cure diseases…
Dawkins said:
I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them.His fellow evolutionist Dr Peter Singer, a bioethicist at Princeton University, would strongly agree. Singer is also a prominent promoter of euthanasia, including as a moral obligation in the case of certain elderly/disabled people (though not, incidentally, his own mother when she had Alzheimer’s). (Groups of the disabled picket his lectures in Germany, since this country knows what eugenics is like in practice).
In addition, he regularly promotes the idea of infanticide, the right of parents to dispose of babies, particularly handicapped ones. He readily accepts that babies in the womb are human. Rather than this being a reason not to kill them, he argues in reverse. If it is OK to kill a baby in the womb (abortion) because it has not yet aspired to the full ‘rights’ of ‘personhood’, why cannot one give parents the right to decide, say for a few months of a newborn’s life, whether they want to ‘accept’ the child or dispose of it?"
So do you really think social Darwinism and eugenics is dead? Do you really think this has nothing to do with Darwin and evolution?
Give some specific quotes from Darwin repudiating this kind of approach. Give some quotes , unlike the one you provided, that do not hint at any kind of superior attitutude that would call some forms of life 'inferior" to others.
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
Wallace was, as you might know, co-discoverer of natural selection, and jointly presented the paper with Darwin. He was not quite a Darwinian, but his ideas, as you see, are diametrically opposed to eugenics. His argument was that humans were essentially different than other animals, and precisely because of their nature, eugenic practices would not work.
mary:
No, I dod not see that Darwins work is diametrically opposed to eugenics. If that were so why did his own son promoted eugenics?
Barbarian:
Darwin’s response:
**The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; **Charles Darwin The Descent of Man
mary:
How do you interpret the meaning of his last sentence when he speaks of the 'bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind"…sound rather cold and if it is not eugenics, it would lead to thinking that ways of eliminating the weak would be good.
Barbarian:
Arthur Caplan, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, put it best:
"To lay blame for the Holocaust upon Charles Darwin is to engage in a form of Holocaust denial that should forever make Ben Stein the subject of scorn not because of his nudnik concern that evolution somehow undermines morality but because in this contemptible movie he is willing to subvert the key reason why the Holocaust took place — racism — to serve his own ideological end. Expelled indeed."
And that’s the best summation I’ve seen so far.
Mary:
Summing up with an editorial piece are we? So much for the emphasis on facts.
How about the fact that there is a current scientist named Dawkins who is still willing to apply principles of social Darwinism to modern day eugenics:
creationontheweb.com/content/view/4783/
Dawkins himself now says that the eugenic ideas that fuelled the Nazi’s thinking, including their notorious ‘racial hygiene’ and ‘breeding superhumans’ programs, may not be all that bad, after all. In a letter to the editor of the Sunday Herald (Scotland), Dawkins says that while one would not want to be seen agreeing with Hitler, eugenics is practical and desirable. He says that ‘if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?’1
Dawkins and other prominent evolutionists increasingly apply their particular religious worldviews to issues such as the genetic improvement of the human species which, they say, is a logical consequence of wanting to use genetic manipulation to cure diseases…
Dawkins said:
I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them.His fellow evolutionist Dr Peter Singer, a bioethicist at Princeton University, would strongly agree. Singer is also a prominent promoter of euthanasia, including as a moral obligation in the case of certain elderly/disabled people (though not, incidentally, his own mother when she had Alzheimer’s). (Groups of the disabled picket his lectures in Germany, since this country knows what eugenics is like in practice).
In addition, he regularly promotes the idea of infanticide, the right of parents to dispose of babies, particularly handicapped ones. He readily accepts that babies in the womb are human. Rather than this being a reason not to kill them, he argues in reverse. If it is OK to kill a baby in the womb (abortion) because it has not yet aspired to the full ‘rights’ of ‘personhood’, why cannot one give parents the right to decide, say for a few months of a newborn’s life, whether they want to ‘accept’ the child or dispose of it?"
So do you really think social Darwinism and eugenics is dead? Do you really think this has nothing to do with Darwin and evolution?
Give some specific quotes from Darwin repudiating this kind of approach. Give some quotes , unlike the one you provided, that do not hint at any kind of superior attitutude that would call some forms of life 'inferior" to others.
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
You have to apply the principle to research approaches. I understand you have to be able to show facts without religious language, but the facts of nature which is God’s creation are going to be consistent with “love”, the nature of God. I understand the source for all things is God, including our intelligence and ability to study nature…but manipulating nature as if we are gods is putting ourselves above the laws of God. Science has done that and some scientists are doing it today.
That is what I understand.
In Chirst
MaryJohnZ
R
ribozyme
Guest
MaryJohnZ;3748363 said:
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
Eugenics isn’t dead. Social Darwinism isn’t dead. But do you have any evidence that Peter Singer is a social Darwinist? Singer most certainly advocates eugenics, but he is not a social Darwinist.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
Let’s look at some definitions of social Darwinism then:
google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBR&defl=en&q=define:SOCIAL+DARWINISM&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Social Darwinism’ is a domain of social philosophy based on Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theories, developed by sociologist Herbert …
www.eubios.info/biodict.htm
Term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in “survival of the fittest. …
martiallaw911.info/glossary.htm
A social theory which states that the level a person rises to in society and wealth is determined by their genetic background.
regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic.cfm
Social Darwinism was a late-19th-century sociological theory that was based on the theories of biological evolution and natural selection put forth by biologists Charles DARWIN and Alfred Russel WALLACE and on social philosopher Herbert SPENCER’s theory of sociocultural evolution, "survival of …
www.peizhang.com/aboutus/ap_history/apus_terms_chapter_17_19.doc
It sounds like Peter Singer is carrying the argument that some parents can choose to abort a baby before birth because of possible defects further to a period after birth so that when a baby is born with defects they can still choose to end that life. It sound like a philosophy that would come out of social Darwinism to me.
All of these philosophies have more pure applications, but they give rise to auxiliary applications that are equally evil.
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBR&defl=en&q=define:SOCIAL+DARWINISM&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Social Darwinism’ is a domain of social philosophy based on Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theories, developed by sociologist Herbert …
www.eubios.info/biodict.htm
Term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in “survival of the fittest. …
martiallaw911.info/glossary.htm
A social theory which states that the level a person rises to in society and wealth is determined by their genetic background.
regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic.cfm
Social Darwinism was a late-19th-century sociological theory that was based on the theories of biological evolution and natural selection put forth by biologists Charles DARWIN and Alfred Russel WALLACE and on social philosopher Herbert SPENCER’s theory of sociocultural evolution, "survival of …
www.peizhang.com/aboutus/ap_history/apus_terms_chapter_17_19.doc
It sounds like Peter Singer is carrying the argument that some parents can choose to abort a baby before birth because of possible defects further to a period after birth so that when a baby is born with defects they can still choose to end that life. It sound like a philosophy that would come out of social Darwinism to me.
All of these philosophies have more pure applications, but they give rise to auxiliary applications that are equally evil.
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
It’s a fact. Would you like to see the evidence again? Simply denying the truth won’t change it, Mary. Fact is, the very basis for classical eugenics is flawed, and as early as 1918, Darwinians like Punnet had shown this, using evolutionary theory.
So Darwin denounced eugenics ( I showed you that he did in “Descent of Man”, but you think even though Darwin and his successors like Morgan denounced them (and later showed that eugenics was practically impossible) that kept the “snowball rolling?” C’mon, Mary. You know that’s not right.
I showed you that Darwin himself did. Here, take another look:
The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; Charles Darwin The Descent of Man
As you also learned, the Nazi program came from medieval sources; Martin Luther had advocated most of what the Nazis did.
Free free to show me where Darwin said anything like that.
(see this article) http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5085’
Here’s a choice tidbit from that site:
But is that the case? Most people are not even aware of the full title of his 1859 masterwork: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. That last half of the title, often overlooked, sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual.
In fact, in Darwin’s time, different kinds of animals were referred to as races. He didn’t even refer to humans in the book. Either the guys running that site are complete morons, or more likely they are simply hoping others are.
The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; …
But Darwin denounced eugenics here. That certainly refutes your entire case.
No. In fact, Darwinists, using his theory, demolished any rational basis for classical eugenics.
Punnett, in his critique, “Eliminating Feeblemindedness,” showed that it could not work.
Darwin did not say anything like that. Indeed, as you see, he scorned the idea as evil. This is no different than segregationists using the Bible to commit crimes against blacks. God is not responsible for people who warp Christianity to evil uses. Nor is Darwin guilty of others warp his theories.
But he offers no examples. I gave you a quote directly from Darwin. Like most people of European descent at the time, Darwin was a racist. Unlike most of his fellows, he did not think that any superiority gave people the right to oppress those thought inferior.
They were your people, Mary. And later, when genetics merged with Darwinism, it became clear that eugenics wouldn’t work.
You see lots of justification for subjugation of others in European theology at the time. But not from Darwin or his fellows. I know that admitting this is difficult for you.
But the truth matters.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Social Darwinism has the same relationship to Darwinism that slavery in Amerca had to Christianity. In each case, people took something true, and corrupted it to something evil.
Neither Christians nor Darwin are responsible for people who twist their words to evil ends.
Neither Christians nor Darwin are responsible for people who twist their words to evil ends.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
But the truth matters.
Yes, the truth does matter, and yous way of posting greatly confuses truth as you fail to differentiate between what I am saying and different pieces of quotes from the sources I post. This makes the discourse very confusing and can be misleading to a third party reading the post. It also makes it very hard to respond to. Let’s separt out some ideas.
First…you saying that because you can find other philosophies in human history that resemble eugenics that those are the original source for the the horrific events of the the Nazi racial cleansing programs, the eugenics laws in some of the staes in the US, the Klu Klux Klan, etc… I agree that those philosophies did exist in differing forms and that there always are people willing to say they are superior and have a right to be bullies and try to destroy others. The “stoics” are mentioned. I have also seen articles mentioning “Gnostics”. But then you go on to say that social Darwininsm had nothing to do with Charles Darwin, and that the eugenics movment did not have any connection to his theories. You keep mentioning “Punnet” so I looked him up and found this mention of him lecturing at a eugenics meeting (hmmmmm):
“Professor Punnett gave a lecture on “Genetics and Eugenics” from a Mendelian viewpoint at the second public meeting on 5 December 1911. The undergraduate section found this view very important and Fisher proposed that one paper should be devoted to Mendelism each academic year. Punnett’s lecture was favourably reported in the Cambridge Daily News (6 December 1911) in addition to mention of distribution to Cambridge members of Major Darwin’s presidential address to the parent Society and noting that he would be lecturing in Cambridge the next term. It was also reported that following Punnett’s lecture an all-party meeting of members of Parliament were considering a draft Bill for the care and control of the feeble-minded with a promise to deal with the question at the next session. Punnett’s lecture was not intended to educate the lower classes but to explain to his own class that they should use fertility as a weapon against the lower classes.”
galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0306/university_of_cambridge_eugenics.htm
So it would seem that the scientist you are mentioning as the one who debunked eugenics was a member of the eugenics society. Interesting. The article talks about the reasons tfor the eugenics group’s “demise” but none of the reason given had anything to do with arguments from Punnett. Also a Major Leonard Darwin is mentioned in the article. Turns out this is the son of Charles Darwin: from his biography on wikiperdia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Darwin
"He was Chairman of the British Eugenics Society between 1911-1928, (succeeding his half-cousin once removed Francis Galton), and became Honorary President from 1928 until his death. He was an officer of the Royal Geographical Society from 1908 to 1911, and then its president. In 1912 the University of Cambridge conferred on him the honorary degree of doctor of science.
Darwin played an important part in the life of the geneticist and statistician R.A. Fisher, supporting him intellectually, morally and sometimes financially. When Fisher was elected to the Royal Society Darwin naturally congratulated him. In reply Fisher wrote, “I knew you would be glad, and your pleasure is as good to me almost as though my own father were still living.” (February 25, 1929) Darwin always treated Fisher with enormous tact and generosity. A perfect example came later in 1929. Some years before, after a disagreement, Fisher had resigned from the Royal Statistical Society. Darwin regretted the development and engineered Fisher’s re-entry by making him the gift of a life-time subscription to the society. (Letters of 25 and 27 June.) Fisher’s 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection is dedicated to Darwin. After Darwin’s death in 1943 Fisher wrote to Darwin’s niece, Margaret Keynes, “My very dear friend Leonard Darwin… was surely the kindest and wisest man I ever knew”.
The “Fisher” mentioned was also a member of the eugenics society and was in the first article. So the links to eugenics are there historically. You can’t jump around them or wish them away.
Scientific facts can be used for wrong purposes just as scriptural passages can be interpreted and used wrongly, I agree. That is why I am so glad to live under the authority of the Church and as long as I trust in the promises given to her teachings I won’t go astray as these other people did.
In Christ, maryJohnZ
Yes, the truth does matter, and yous way of posting greatly confuses truth as you fail to differentiate between what I am saying and different pieces of quotes from the sources I post. This makes the discourse very confusing and can be misleading to a third party reading the post. It also makes it very hard to respond to. Let’s separt out some ideas.
First…you saying that because you can find other philosophies in human history that resemble eugenics that those are the original source for the the horrific events of the the Nazi racial cleansing programs, the eugenics laws in some of the staes in the US, the Klu Klux Klan, etc… I agree that those philosophies did exist in differing forms and that there always are people willing to say they are superior and have a right to be bullies and try to destroy others. The “stoics” are mentioned. I have also seen articles mentioning “Gnostics”. But then you go on to say that social Darwininsm had nothing to do with Charles Darwin, and that the eugenics movment did not have any connection to his theories. You keep mentioning “Punnet” so I looked him up and found this mention of him lecturing at a eugenics meeting (hmmmmm):
“Professor Punnett gave a lecture on “Genetics and Eugenics” from a Mendelian viewpoint at the second public meeting on 5 December 1911. The undergraduate section found this view very important and Fisher proposed that one paper should be devoted to Mendelism each academic year. Punnett’s lecture was favourably reported in the Cambridge Daily News (6 December 1911) in addition to mention of distribution to Cambridge members of Major Darwin’s presidential address to the parent Society and noting that he would be lecturing in Cambridge the next term. It was also reported that following Punnett’s lecture an all-party meeting of members of Parliament were considering a draft Bill for the care and control of the feeble-minded with a promise to deal with the question at the next session. Punnett’s lecture was not intended to educate the lower classes but to explain to his own class that they should use fertility as a weapon against the lower classes.”
galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0306/university_of_cambridge_eugenics.htm
So it would seem that the scientist you are mentioning as the one who debunked eugenics was a member of the eugenics society. Interesting. The article talks about the reasons tfor the eugenics group’s “demise” but none of the reason given had anything to do with arguments from Punnett. Also a Major Leonard Darwin is mentioned in the article. Turns out this is the son of Charles Darwin: from his biography on wikiperdia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Darwin
"He was Chairman of the British Eugenics Society between 1911-1928, (succeeding his half-cousin once removed Francis Galton), and became Honorary President from 1928 until his death. He was an officer of the Royal Geographical Society from 1908 to 1911, and then its president. In 1912 the University of Cambridge conferred on him the honorary degree of doctor of science.
Darwin played an important part in the life of the geneticist and statistician R.A. Fisher, supporting him intellectually, morally and sometimes financially. When Fisher was elected to the Royal Society Darwin naturally congratulated him. In reply Fisher wrote, “I knew you would be glad, and your pleasure is as good to me almost as though my own father were still living.” (February 25, 1929) Darwin always treated Fisher with enormous tact and generosity. A perfect example came later in 1929. Some years before, after a disagreement, Fisher had resigned from the Royal Statistical Society. Darwin regretted the development and engineered Fisher’s re-entry by making him the gift of a life-time subscription to the society. (Letters of 25 and 27 June.) Fisher’s 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection is dedicated to Darwin. After Darwin’s death in 1943 Fisher wrote to Darwin’s niece, Margaret Keynes, “My very dear friend Leonard Darwin… was surely the kindest and wisest man I ever knew”.
The “Fisher” mentioned was also a member of the eugenics society and was in the first article. So the links to eugenics are there historically. You can’t jump around them or wish them away.
Scientific facts can be used for wrong purposes just as scriptural passages can be interpreted and used wrongly, I agree. That is why I am so glad to live under the authority of the Church and as long as I trust in the promises given to her teachings I won’t go astray as these other people did.
In Christ, maryJohnZ
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
I don’t understand your statement. it is confusing. Articulate how you see the relationship of science to moral law. Are they totally exclusionary?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Moral law must rule science; science cannot inform moral law, except as to the particulars of a case. It can, for example, say when a functioning nervous system in present in the unborn, but it cannot say when a human with natural rights is present. That is not the function of science, nor can it make such judgements.
Science is a much smaller realm than moral law. I think it was Russel who wrote that reason is and should be the servant of our emotions.
As I said, those who tried to find values in science committed grave crimes against humanity. As Darwin said, it was an evil idea.
This is at the base of Stein’s libel against science; he wants it to do what it cannot. And people like him were the ones who tried to make eugenics work.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
Mary:
That is an opinion on your part.I think eugenics would be completely against Bern Stein’s sense of morality from everything I have heard about him. I think modern scientists like the Oxford scientist,Richard Dawkins or that other scientist Peter Singer, are the ones we need to be concerned about. Those are the scientists that Ben Stein is concerned about.
Sometimes your defense of science goes way too far. Any area of human endeavor is going to have people in it that go in the wrong direction. Modern science is not free of that fault. I sincerely hope you recognize the immorality in your own profession. Not to do so and to just blindly defend it is just as dishonest as saying all of science is wrong. .
Since “morals” rule science, where do scientists get their morals?
In Christ,
maryJonhZ
R
ribozyme
Guest
Scientists do not share a universal moral code. One could be a great scientist and be an Peter Singer utilitarian, a Catholic scienist, Rawlsian deontologist, or a Francisco d’Anconia with a fervent hatred of the “looters” etc.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
But in the case of slavery I can find the evidence that the Cathoilic Church taught that it was wrong. I can find the encyclicals and the fact that the Church (Pope) said that people practicing slavery, including the Sapnish men who were enslaving the inhabitants of the Americas during colonial period, were to be
excommunicated. That is pretty clear teaching. But I can not find quotes from Darwin condemning eugenics.
users.binary.net/polycarp/slave.html
*Popes Gregory XIV (Cum Sicuti, 1591), Urban VIII (Commissum Nobis, 1639) and Benedict XIV (Immensa Pastorum, 1741) also condemned slavery and the slave trade. Unlike the earlier papal letters, these excommunications were more directed towards the clergy than the laity. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull, entitled In Supremo. Its main focus was against slave trading, but it also clearly condemned racial slavery:
*“We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples.” *Ibid., pp.101
Writings as early as the mid 1400s show church opposition to slavery…
so what modern day scientists which you support have written in opposition to abortion and birth control, genetic engineering?*
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
well that is a problem then isn’t it since eugenics can still be part of the science community for some scientists…
Is there a way to correct that in your opinion?
In Christ,
MaryJohnZ
- Status