Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[MaryJohnZ]

Charles Darwin:

“Some naturalists, from being deeply impressed with the mental and spiritual powers of man, have divided the whole organic world into three kingdoms, the Human, the Animal, and the Vegetable, thus giving to man a separate kingdom.* Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist: but he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in degree, however great, does not justify us in placing man in a distinct kingdom,” Descent of Man Chapter 6

The argument he is putting forth is that man is an animal and any
‘spitiual aspect’ of man is only animal instinct at an evolved level.
This is contrary to Catholic belief. While Catholic belief may allow that the physical body of man evolved from lower forms, the spiritual aspect was ‘inspired’ into man by God. The Catholic belief is also that this occurred instantaneously, not over time.

For a quote on this:

The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated. The term “mind” usually denotes this principle as the subject of our conscious states, while “soul” denotes the source of our vegetative activities as well. That our vital activities proceed from a principle capable of subsisting in itself, is the thesis of the substantiality of the soul: that this principle is not itself composite, extended, corporeal, or essentially and intrinsically dependent on the body, is the doctrine of spirituality. If there be a life after death, clearly the agent or subject of our vital activities must be capable of an existence separate from the body. The belief in an animating principle in some sense distinct from the body is an almost inevitable inference from the observed facts of life. Even uncivilized peoples arrive at the concept of the soul almost without reflection, certainly without any severe mental effort. The mysteries of birth and death, the lapse of conscious life during sleep and in swooning, even the commonest operations of imagination and memory, which abstract a man from his bodily presence even while awake-all such facts invincibly suggest the existence of something besides the visible organism, internal to it, but to a large extent independent of it, and leading a life of its own.

What Darwin is doing falls in line with some philosophers like Descarts who reduced man to mere mechanisms The uniqueness of the human person was thus denied and the dignity of human value reduced to a materialistic formula, making it easy to justify such policies as we now have in our own country where embryos are used by ecperiments or death…

"Evolutionism endeavours to explain the origin of the soul from merely material forces. Spirit is not the basis and principle; rather it is the ultimate efflorescence of the Cosmos. If we ask then “what was the original basis out of which spirit and all things arose?” we are told it was the Unknowable (Spencer). This system must be treated as Materialistic Monism. The answer to it is that, as the outcome of the Unknowable has a spiritual character, the Unknowable itself (assuming its reality) must be spiritual."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

---

So we can see that the definition or concept of the human person put forth in the evolutionary system of Darwin is indeed a materialistic philosophy which is in conflict with the Catholic teaching of soul. The fact that Darwin laid emphasis ( see beginning quote) and even expressed pride in his reduction of the soul to evolved intelligence or instinct shows that he is in no way, manner or form a Christian scientist. he is a materialist through anf through.

---

“The only thing which the Mechanists, as those natural philosophers who advanced this new view of nature were called, could not fit into their system was the soul as it had been understood by the great Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical tradition. It wasn’t merely the human intellectual soul which did not “fit” in their system, it was the soul as the principle of animation in all living things. Since neither soul nor animation can be understood mathematically, these “obnoxious” facts of nature simply could not exit. Although Descartes tried to salvage the human soul by reducing it to a “mind” whose purpose it was to manipulate the mechanism of nature, he simply denied the reality of soul and, therefore, animation or life to all nonhuman creatures. All that was below man, even man’s own body, was simply a gear in the cosmic apparatus…”

sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/life_ensoulment_of_matter.htm

And here is another statement concerning the falicy of materialistic moneism , which is what darwin is expressing in his statement:

"If nature includes both mental and physical phenomena, what are the relations between these two classes? On this point also the history of philosophy offers many attempts to substitute some form of Monism for the Dualism of mind and matter, by reducing mind to a special function of matter, or matter to a special appearance of mind, or both to a common substratum.
newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm

---

The awful consequence of this approach to the human person is that it is much easier to say a person is not in possession of a soul unless they act or exist at a certain stage of development or
well being. Thus some human beings which are in a more helpless stage can be dehumanized and become targets for
experimentation or death as in abortion, frozen embryos, killing of elderly or sick…

Thus:
Materialistic science leads to death.

In Christ, mary John Z

Anyone who is more able to discuss philosophy, please jump in.
I am learning a lot by having to look these things up though.
I am very interested in the nature of ‘soul’ Vs “Spirit”… and I think this is an interesting direction to bring this discussion.

 

[dbg]

Garrr!

This is only going to deeper convict those who believe science and religion are exclusive entities, that evolution is exclusive to creation, etc.

Is it possible to get a prominent public figure who will explain that religion and science are absolutely not exclusive? Even if its obvious, someone needs to dismiss the idea that religion and science can’t work together.

science and religion are exclusive of one another.

A true scientist is loyal to reason above any religious fancy. A religious believer is loyal to religious doctrine above reason.

For example: if evidence were to be found that Jesus remains were buried and this evidence was solid, the scientist would come to the belief that Jesus was indeed buried – perhaps it wouldn’t be certain, but he’d say it was probable. For the religious believer however, even one claiming to be a scientist, she would say that her religious doctrine is more certain than any evidence. She wouldn’t examine the evidence impartially but look at it with the presupposition (due to her faith) that it was insufficient.

That exact thing happened when they found the tomb of Jesus or found good evidence that it may be it. People countered it by pointing to scholars who doubted it – but these were for the most part scholars who were religious. Among non-religious scholars who had examined the issue, there was not much doubt AFAIK if any.

IOW the true scientist has to be non-religious if he is to be truly open-minded to hypotheses that contradict any given religion. You can’t do science while ruling out a bunch of hyotheses a priori based on religious belief.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Darwin, asserting that man is more than a mere animal:

Some naturalists, from being deeply impressed with the mental and spiritual powers of man, have divided the whole organic world into three kingdoms, the Human, the Animal, and the Vegetable, thus giving to man a separate kingdom. Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist: but he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in degree, however great, does not justify us in placing man in a distinct kingdom,*
Darwin, Descent of Man

The argument he is putting forth is that man is an animal and any ‘spitiual aspect’ of man is only animal instinct at an evolved level.

Be honest, Mary. He’s saying just the opposite. He alludes to man’s spiritual character, which he says is beyond the ken of science.

While Catholic belief may allow that the physical body of man evolved from lower forms, the spiritual aspect was ‘inspired’ into man by God.

Which is consistent with Darwin’s opinion. Remember, Darwin thought that God created the first living things.

The Catholic belief is also that this occurred instantaneously, not over time.

As Darwin says, this is not something science can test, so that too is consistent with the Church’s teachings.

What Darwin is doing falls in line with some philosophers like Descarts who reduced man to mere mechanisms

He says, in your very quote, exactly the opposite. Be honest with yourself, at least.

Evolutionism endeavours to explain the origin of the soul from merely material forces.

If so, then Darwin’s theory has nothing to do with “evolutionism”, since Darwin says that man’s spiritual aspect isn’t even approachable by science.

So we can see that the definition or concept of the human person put forth in the evolutionary system of Darwin is indeed a materialistic philosophy which is in conflict with the Catholic teaching of soul.

Since Darwin alludes to human spiritual powers beyond the ken of science, your statement is false. Why not just accept the truth, and let it be, Mary?

Materialistic science leads to death.

Science, as you learned, cannot be ontologically materialistic, since (as Darwin told you) such a conclusion is beyond the reach of science. Science can only be methodologically naturalistic, because it has no way of studying anything but the material universe.

As you know, science has led to longer, healthier, and more comfortable lives for most people.

On the other hand, as you learned, the darker side of human behavior, exemplified by Luther’s advocacy of the Nazi “final solution” has often led to horror and great suffering.

You would be less foolish to argue that plumbing leads to death, because at least plumbers worked on the facilities as Auschwitz.

Stein has been relegated to the box reserved for other Holocaust deniers precisely because he sought to make excuses for the Nazis and to blame those who opposed Hitler.

You should stop defending him.

 

[The_Barbarian]

science and religion are exclusive of one another.

More precisely, they are complementary to one another.

A true scientist is loyal to reason above any religious fancy. A religious believer is loyal to religious doctrine above reason.

Reason is one way to understand God. Many of our greatest and most productive modern scientists are believers.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

More precisely, they are complementary to one another.

Reason is one way to understand God. Many of our greatest and most productive modern scientists are believers.

---

Since I believe Christ gave the gift of infallibility to His Church then I would think that any Catholic scientists acting in faith could
proceed to partake in scientific research knowing that reason and fact will support what is known by Church teaching.

But to say scientists have to act ebtirley outside of faith is very dangerous ground for faith is what extablishes some priorities in regard to morality in research, Everyone here woyld probablt agree the Nazi medical doctor Josef Mengele who did horrific medical experiments was acting immorally, but you could not necessarily say he was action outside of reason. When you place science/scientists totally outside of some moral framework then that is when the types of research may become terribly, grossly disingaged from what the definition of a person is, or what is moral in regard to the environment or even to animals…
Facts and utilitarian goals can be very open to ‘Frankenstien’ types of directions in science.

So I disagree with anyone who thinks scientists can be totally outside of some arena of faith. Even Darwin would have recognized some moral limits of experimentation on human beings…unfortuantely, those who took Darwin too literally that people were just animals were not always as careful with the direction of their research…

I believe Darwin clearly inserted his own philosophical view, which was outside of fact, into his writings in the Decswent of Man, His view was not Christian, but it was of a type of religion non the less.

Josef menegel inserted his religious view when he did his research,. It was not traditional Christian belief…but it was maorals of his choosing.

You can’t separate the two in the end. Every scientist, even those who deny they are doing it, are intertwining the two…

In Christ, maryJohnz

 

[The_Barbarian]

But to say scientists have to act ebtirley outside of faith is very dangerous ground for faith is what extablishes some priorities in regard to morality in research,

That would be a bad thing; but that is not what science requires. Methodological naturalism only means that science can’t use religious doctrines. Scientists still can.

Everyone here woyld probablt agree the Nazi medical doctor Josef Mengele who did horrific medical experiments was acting immorally, but you could not necessarily say he was action outside of reason.

Then you don’t know much about him and his work.

When you place science/scientists totally outside of some moral framework then that is when the types of research may become terribly, grossly disingaged from what the definition of a person is, or what is moral in regard to the environment or even to animals…

You’ve confused the methodological naturalism of science, with some notion that scientists can only think within the boundaries of science.

unfortuantely, those who took Darwin too literally that people were just animals

As you know, but apparently hope we don’t, Darwin regarded humans as having rights to life and liberty (and “spiritual powers”) that animals did not. Remember, the truth matters, Mary. It should matter to you.

I believe Darwin clearly inserted his own philosophical view, which was outside of fact, into his writings in the Decswent of Man,

His allusion to man as a spiritual being was not scientific, which he pointed out. He clearly indicated that was beyond science.

His view was not Christian,

No, you’re wrong about that. Christianity does not depend on science.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

That would be a bad thing; but that is not what science requires. Methodological naturalism only means that science can’t use religious doctrines. Scientists still can.

Some people think that secular progressives are ‘neutral’ because they say they leave religion outside of things but they come to things with values as well, generally ‘materialistic’ based values. people understand that if something is 'God" based, that it has religious values according to the definition of God 9 not necessarily a good definiton). If something is ‘materialistic’ based that has values according to your definition of what the goal of materialistic progress is… For example, if it is it to preserve the environment, there may be cause to see the ‘human’ being and overpopulation as an enemy. If your value system is about the progress of society, some groups of people in the society might be considered enemies…etc.
Values are always part of the equation defining the range, methodologies and goals of science…

Then you don’t know much about him and his work.

Josef Mengel believed he was doing experiments that would help in understanding genetics…he justified it as having a greater good for the german society. It was in keeping with the eugenic value system which saw some people as lesser than others. Some of those values came out of Darwin’s thoughts on racial inequality and the way he defined the human person materialistically.

You’ve confused the methodological naturalism of science, with some notion that scientists can only think within the boundaries of science.

So what is your solution? the fact is some methodologies are immoral in themselves, such as experimenting on human beings (Josef Mengeles) and experimenting on the tiiniest humans (frozen embryos) which many modern scientists do. Both those methodologies come out of value systems that regard certain human beings as lesser.These value systems also tend to be godless or else the ‘god’ they serve is not defined in terms of a spiritual one.

As you know, but apparently hope we don’t, Darwin regarded humans as having rights to life and liberty (and “spiritual powers”) that animals did not. Remember, the truth matters, Mary. It should matter to you.

Don’t know that and don’t find it in his writings.

His allusion to man as a spiritual being was not scientific, which he pointed out. He clearly indicated that was beyond science.

All he indicated was that he was proud to be able to say he was able to show how different forms of consciouness in human beings can be seen to be in animals in lesser or lower forms. **he did not see anything as beyond definition of natural, materialistic processes…/**COLOR]

No, you’re wrong about that. Christianity does not depend on science.

I know Christianity doesn’t depend on science but good science will be be in tune and I believe in the end, will support Chruch teachings. I believe scientists should err on the side of caution in regard to human life, always careful to regard its care and preservation as important on every level.

Sorry my last post was so poorly typed. I am using some different eye medicine right now which affected my vision at the time.

In Christ, maryJohnz

 

[MaryJohnZ]

This was a good article on the Catholic view of science and the Darwinist debate…

discovery.org/a/2835

MaryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

science and religion are exclusive of one another.

A true scientist is loyal to reason above any religious fancy. A religious believer is loyal to religious doctrine above reason.

For example: if evidence were to be found that Jesus remains were buried and this evidence was solid, the scientist would come to the belief that Jesus was indeed buried – perhaps it wouldn’t be certain, but he’d say it was probable. For the religious believer however, even one claiming to be a scientist, she would say that her religious doctrine is more certain than any evidence. She wouldn’t examine the evidence impartially but look at it with the presupposition (due to her faith) that it was insufficient.

That exact thing happened when they found the tomb of Jesus or found good evidence that it may be it. People countered it by pointing to scholars who doubted it – but these were for the most part scholars who were religious. Among non-religious scholars who had examined the issue, there was not much doubt AFAIK if any.

IOW the true scientist has to be non-religious if he is to be truly open-minded to hypotheses that contradict any given religion. You can’t do science while ruling out a bunch of hyotheses a priori based on religious belief.

---

I saw the so called ‘documentary’ on the tomb of 'jesus" and it was such bogus science that it would embarras any true scientist
who cared about the search for truth. There leaped to so many conclusions without any supporting evidence to establish those conclusions that it truly was a sham and should never have aired on TV.

You say:

“IOW the true scientist has to be non-religious if he is to be truly open-minded to hypotheses that contradict any given religion.”

(sounds a bit like Immanuel Kant)

Trouble is even atheism has been declared a religion, as it should be. Atheists need to be equally open to religious explanations or possible explanation…thay are possibilities as well.

Can you prove ‘Angels’ don’t exist? or God? And yet you want to research things as if those Spiritual realities are non existent and non-possibilities. That is a huge prejudice which can bring about a false conclusion just as much as an oppositie tendency to argue everthing from a literal interpretation of the Bible, which would not allow for natural explanation, can also bring about false conclusions.

"What raises red flags for Catholics is not evolutionary theory per se, but materialist philosophy disguised as science. “The Church,” wrote Pope John Paul II, “distrusts only preconceived opinions that claim to be based on science, but which in reality surreptitiously cause science to depart from its domain.” There is no question that the writings of many Darwinists flunk this test.

People like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins and Richard Lewontin start with a philosophical premise: There is no God, therefore a purely materialistic explanation of everything, including us, must be true. But this is ideology, not science. Lewontin, who teaches genetics at Harvard, admits as much: “We take the side of science… in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”
discovery.org/a/2835

In Christ, MaryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

This was a good article on the Catholic view of science and the Darwinist debate…

First, it’s a libel, falsely claiming that Stephen Gould said that there was no God:

People like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins and Richard Lewontin start with a philosophical premise: There is no God,

As you know, that kind of stuff is standard procedure for the Discovery Institute.

Of course their conflation of evolutionary theory with the origin of life is another dishonesty. I say dishonesty, because the “Fellows” of the Discovery Institute have been reminded that they are not the same, many times. And, since Darwin attributed the origin of life to God, it is dishonest to pretend that he did not.

Your “good article” is a collage of dishonesties and misunderstandings about science. If it came from a reputable organization, it would be an embarrassment.

But it’s just SOP for those guys.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That would be a bad thing; but that is not what science requires. Methodological naturalism only means that science can’t use religious doctrines. Scientists still can.

(stuff about “secular progressives”)

If you were less ideologically stuck in politics, it would be easier for you to accept the Church’s teachings, Mary.

Josef Mengel believed he was doing experiments that would help in understanding genetics…he justified it as having a greater good for the german society. It was in keeping with the eugenic value system which saw some people as lesser than others.

Not from his experiments. It seems more like sadism than any sort of scientific work. His “experiments” were garbage, and none of them were of any scientific value.

Some of those values came out of Darwin’s thoughts on racial inequality

C’mon Mary, you know better. In fact, you’ve repeatedly been shown that they directly contradicted Darwin’s opinions on race and eugenics. Do you need to see it again?

and the way he defined the human person materialistically.

Mary, your own quote from Darwin showed that he didn’t see humans merely materialistically. Do you think we forgot already?

Barbarian observes:
You’ve confused the methodological naturalism of science, with some notion that scientists can only think within the boundaries of science.

So what is your solution?

You could start with the truth.

Barbarian observes:
As you know, but apparently hope we don’t, Darwin regarded humans as having rights to life and liberty (and “spiritual powers”) that animals did not. Remember, the truth matters, Mary. It should matter to you.

Don’t know that and don’t find it in his writings.

You didn’t know he opposed slavery, and opposed letting the weak perish? You saw this numerous times here, and you posted his observation that humans had a spiritual nature, yourself.

His allusion to man as a spiritual being was not scientific, which he pointed out.

Right. Darwin accepted that some things are beyond science. That’s also the teaching of the Church. You should accept it.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

First, it’s a libel, falsely claiming that Stephen Gould said that there was no God:

People like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins and Richard Lewontin start with a philosophical premise: There is no God,

As you know, that kind of stuff is standard procedure for the Discovery Institute.

Of course their conflation of evolutionary theory with the origin of life is another dishonesty. I say dishonesty, because the “Fellows” of the Discovery Institute have been reminded that they are not the same, many times. And, since Darwin attributed the origin of life to God, it is dishonest to pretend that he did not.

Your “good article” is a collage of dishonesties and misunderstandings about science. If it came from a reputable organization, it would be an embarrassment.

But it’s just SOP for those guys.

It seems to me the article is more honest than your continual refusal to accept the historic record on Nazi racism and the links to eugenics and Darwin. That is what astounds me…over and over scientists, including the scientitsts who work in the same research institute that was formerly active under the Nazis admit that they were involved in the Nazi programs. The eugenic movement shows the link to Darwin as well and scientific journals and sites which I have previously posted all agree on those links.
Inorder to do what you want to me to do I would have to go against that vast historic record. The evidence you have provided, one quote from Darwin, simply does not out weigh the body of evidence pointing to the link to Darwin. I really feel you are in serious denial of the truth.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

[Barbarian:
Right. Darwin accepted that some things are beyond science. That’s also the teaching of the Church. You should accept it.
[/QUOTE]

Wrong again and very misleading, as most of your assertions are.

Darwin said the conscience and ‘spiritual’ side of the person were highly developed animal instinct and he went to great length in the book 'Descent of Man" to compare the way animals think, react, dream, care for each other, as being the same types of behaviour human beings have. He did not think of these attributes in human beings as being unique from the animal world. He was boastful that he could show how they evolved in humans to a higher degree but emphasized that humans did not deserve a separate class from animals…

Some naturalists, from being deeply impressed with the mental and spiritual powers of man, have divided the whole organic world into three kingdoms, the Human, the Animal, and the Vegetable, thus giving to man a separate kingdom.* Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist: **but he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in degree, however great, does not justify us in placing man in a distinct kingdom,**Darwin, Descent of Man

Darwin is clearly saying that man’s powers only differ in degree from animals and he is expressing strongly the sentiment that man does not belong in any other category but the animal one.
This view is contradictory to the Catholic view that John Paul II expressed:

“In fact, the horizon of a heavenly universe, presented by Genesis (Chapter 2) at the very origins of the world, is placed by Isaiah (Chapter 11), and the Apocalypse (Chapters 21-22) at the end of history. Thus is seen the harmony of man with his fellow creatures, with creation and with God, which is the plan willed by the Creator. This plan was and is continually upset by human sin, which is inspired in an alternative plan, portrayed in the Book of Genesis itself (Chapters 3-11), which describes the affirmation of a progressive conflictual tension with God, with one’s fellow men, and even with nature.”

 "The contrast between the two plans emerges clearly in the vocation to which, according to the Bible, humanity is called and in the consequences caused by his infidelity to that call.  The human creature receives a mission of government over creation to make all its potential shine.  It is a delegation attributed by the divine King at the very origins of creation, when man and woman, who are the "image of God" (Genesis 1:27), received the order to be fruitful, to multiply, to fill the earth, to subjugate it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and over every living being that crawls on the earth (see Genesis 1:28). St. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the three great Cappadocian Fathers, commented: "God made man in such a way that he could develop his function as king of the earth.  Man was created in the image of him who governs the universe.  Everything reveals that from the beginning his nature is marked by royalty.  He is the living image who participates in his dignity in the perfection of the divine model" ("De Hominis Opificio, 4: PG 44,136)."

conservation.catholic.org/john_paul_ii.htm

Darwin’s view of the human person, so very different from the one expressed by our beloved John Paul II, has damaged the psychology of our cultural make-up throught the twentieth century. I would say it is one of the basis for the culture of death.

"If nature includes both mental and physical phenomena, what are the relations between these two classes? On this point also the history of philosophy offers many attempts to substitute some form of Monism for the Dualism of mind and matter, by reducing mind to a special function of matter, or matter to a special appearance of mind, or both to a common substratum.
newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm

And here:

“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859) by Charles Darwin (1809–1882) made it possible, in Richard Dawkins’s words in The Blind Watchmaker, “to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Darwin was held by many to have produced a fully naturalistic and scientifically robust explanation of the nature of life. Darwinian evolution and natural selection were taken to be a serious challenge to explanations of the creation and development of life by a designing God.”
science.jrank.org/pages/10301/Monism-Philosophical-Systems.html

---

Thus, Darwin successfully replaced the sense that Creation was the product of a loving, orderly, unitive God with the sense that creation was a matter of chance, struggle and elimination of the weak…all materialistic processes that were guided naturally in nature. All procresses that gave a sense of division, violence and competition over unity and harmony.The result can be seen in our own seemingly schizophrenic society that expresses the need to save baby seals while turning away while baby human beings are being killed at the moment of birth in procedures like partial birth abortions…We decry war and allow talk about clean air while handing out drugs like RU486 to young teen girls so they can be protected from pregnancy while being misued and abused by older sexual predators in society. From a materialistic point of view, like the one in Darwin, those things can be argued as being justified, but from the point of view of a higher spiritual order they cannot be. That is why someone has to stand up and point out the true values in Darwin and say they are false.

I am glad Ben Stein and others have started the conversation.

In Christ, maryJohnz

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Right. Darwin accepted that some things are beyond science. That’s also the teaching of the Church. You should accept it.

Wrong again and very misleading, as most of your assertions are.

It’s right on both counts. Pope Benedict XVI has written that people who try to use science to comment on the supernatural are going beyond science’s proper boundaries. And your own Darwin quote shows that he acknowledged that it cannot address the spiritual. You might as well accept this fact. You are a Catholic, are you not?

Darwin said the conscience and ‘spiritual’ side of the person were highly developed animal instinct

Let’s take a look…

Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist:
Darwin, in The Descent of Man

Turns out he didn’t.

He was boastful that he could show how they evolved in humans to a higher degree but emphasized that humans did not deserve a separate class from animals.

His argument, as you know, was that man is an animal, but not merely an animal. Having a spritual nature, man deserves rights to life and liberty that animals do not have. That is his argument.

This is also the teaching of the Church. As you know, Pope Benedict XVI has written that it is virtually certain that humans evolved from other animals, but that our souls make us different. This is also Darwin’s argument.

Darwin’s view of the human person, so very different from the one expressed by our beloved John Paul II, has damaged the psychology of our cultural make-up throught the twentieth century. I would say it is one of the basis for the culture of death.

As you learned, it was Luther’s arguments used by the Nazis and others to deny the essential rights of humans. As you also learned, Darwin said that even letting the weak among us die was an overwhelming evil. Everyone has seen that, Mary. Why pretend otherwise?

And arguments by atheists to the contrary, are not convincing to me. I doubt if they are convincing to anyone but an atheist.

Darwin, as you know, denounced eugenic ideas, and argued that humans have a spiritual side, having intrinsic rights to liberty and life.

That is why someone has to stand up and point out the true values in Darwin and say they are false.

I do not see how any Catholic could not agree with those things, Mary.

I am glad Ben Stein and others have started the conversation.

Stein, vicious little man that he is, served a useful purpose in flushing his kind of filth into the open where the sunlight can disinfect it.

That’s what we’re doing here, Mary.

 

[The_Barbarian]

It seems to me the article is more honest than your continual refusal to accept the historic record on Nazi racism and the links to eugenics and Darwin.

You saw that Darwin denounced eugenic ideas. You saw that Darwinists showed there was no scientific validity to classic eugenics. The truth matters Mary.

That is what astounds me…over and over scientists, including the scientitsts who work in the same research institute that was formerly active under the Nazis admit that they were involved in the Nazi programs.

As you know, Stein lied when he said scientists were putting people into the gas chambers. In fact, at Nurnberg as all of those criminals were being processed, there was one scientist, (who was actually a doctor, not a working scientist) among all the rest.

The eugenic movement shows the link to Darwin

In the sense that he denounced it. Why pretend otherwise, Mary?

Inorder to do what you want to me to do I would have to go against that vast historic record.

The historic record shows that the Nazis were following the advice of Martin Luther, not Darwin. The historic record shows Darwin denounced the kind of thinking that went into the Holocaust.

Why not just admit it, and let it go?

The evidence you have provided, one quote from Darwin, simply does not out weigh the body of evidence pointing to the link to Darwin.

Darwin’s statements about man’s spiritual side, his assertion of rights to life and liberty for man, and many others show his opposition to the things Hitler and Luther advocated. Why are you defending those people, Mary?

I really feel you are in serious denial of the truth.

So long as you resist the truth, you will remain outside of it.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

You saw that Darwin denounced eugenic ideas. You saw that Darwinists showed there was no scientific validity to classic eugenics. The truth matters Mary.

We have gone over the ties with Social Darwinism several times. I am not going there again…

As you know, Stein lied when he said scientists were putting people into the gas chambers. In fact, at Nurnberg as all of those criminals were being processed, there was one scientist, (who was actually a doctor, not a working scientist) among all the rest.

You mean Josef Mengeles, the eugenicist doctor/scientist?

In the sense that he denounced it. Why pretend otherwise, Mary?

The historic record shows that the Nazis were following the advice of Martin Luther, not Darwin. The historic record shows Darwin denounced the kind of thinking that went into the Holocaust.

NO, not at all… The eugenicist crowd was Darwinian…materialists…Why not just admit it, and let it go?

Darwin’s statements about man’s spiritual side, his assertion of rights to life and liberty for man, and many others show his opposition to the things Hitler and Luther advocated. Why are you defending those people, Mary?

Why are you trying to revise history?

So long as you resist the truth, you will remain outside of it.

True…so stop trying to resist the historic record, because that is what you are doing.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You saw that Darwin denounced eugenic ideas. You saw that Darwinists showed there was no scientific validity to classic eugenics. The truth matters Mary.

We have gone over the ties with Social Darwinism several times.

And each time your argument hit the wall when it was shown that neither Darwin nor Darwinians accepted “Social Darwinism.”

I am not going there again…

And we all know why.

Barbarian observes:
As you know, Stein lied when he said scientists were putting people into the gas chambers. In fact, at Nurnberg as all of those criminals were being processed, there was one scientist, (who was actually a doctor, not a working scientist) among all the rest.

You mean Josef Mengeles, the eugenicist doctor/scientist?

He had no degree in science; his only degree was in medicine.

Barbarian observes:
The historic record shows that the Nazis were following the advice of Martin Luther, not Darwin. The historic record shows Darwin denounced the kind of thinking that went into the Holocaust.

NO, not at all… The eugenicist crowd was Darwinian…

Mary, I showed you that Darwin denounced classical eugenic ideas. I showed you that Darwinians debunked eugenics as a science.

No point in denying it.

Barbarian observes:
Darwin’s statements about man’s spiritual side, his assertion of rights to life and liberty for man, and many others show his opposition to the things Hitler and Luther advocated. Why are you defending those people, Mary?

Why are you trying to revise history?

Mary, the very quote you offered had Darwin acknowledging that man was more than an animal, a being with a spiritual aspect.

As you learned, Stein lied. The Nazi program was proposed by Martin Luther, not Darwin. Darwin denounced such ideas.

I can tell it’s hard for you to accept. But at some point, you have to make peace with the truth.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Mary, the very quote you offered had Darwin acknowledging that man was more than an animal, a being with a spiritual aspect.

I am reposting the quote:

Some naturalists, from being deeply impressed with the mental and spiritual powers of man, have divided the whole organic world into three kingdoms, the Human, the Animal, and the Vegetable, thus giving to man a separate kingdom. Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist: but he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in degree, however great, does not justify us in placing man in a distinct kingdom, Darwin, Descent of Man*

Don’t you see that Darwin is saying the ‘mental’ powers of man do not differ from animal qualities, only in ‘degree’ not in kind…thus saying man cannot be given a separate definition from an animal.

This seems contrary to a Catholic definition which says a human person is body and soul in a substantial union, and that the soul was specifically created by God for the person to which it belongs.

“Scholastic philosophy reaches a conclusion as to the origin of man similar to the teaching of revelation and theology. Man is a creature of God in a created universe. All things that are, except Himself, exist in virtue of a unique creative act. As to the mode of creation, there would seem to be two possible alternatives. Either the individual composite was created ex nihilo, or a created soul became the informing principle of matter already pre-existing in another determination”
newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm

---

But that does not say that man’s consciouness evolved slowly from lower forms. Nor does it say that all men have essentially the same soul which evolved over time. Nor does it say man’s consciousness can continue to evolve past the present day form.

"The theories that are sometimes put forward of the place of man in the universe, as destined to share in a development to which no limits can be assigned, rest upon the Spencerian theory that man is but “a highly-differentiated portion of the earth’s crust and gaseous envelope”, and ignore or deny the limitation imposed by the essential materiality and spirituality of human nature. If the intellectual faculties were indeed no more than the developed animal powers., there would seem to be no possibility of limiting their progress in the future. But since the soul of man is the result, not of evolution, but of creation, it is impossible to look forward to any such advance as would involve a change in man’s specific nature, or any essential difference in its relation to its material environment, in the physiological conditions under which it at present exists, or in its “relation” to its Divine Creator.
newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm​

The Catholic Church teaches the soul of every man is not the product of animal evolution. In this regard Darwin is in error. Since Darwin’s Theory does allow for the possibility of man evolving more and more into some kind of super being it is at odds with the church… and no where does it seem that the church believes animals will evolve to be the rational beings which humans are. Man is given a separate and specific place in Creation, destined to be a 'Son of God" by adoption through grace. Since Christ took the form of a human being, and He is the Incarnate Son of God, how is it that we could begin to concieve that human forms would evolve past the form Christ, Himself, accepted.

But since Darwin’ Theory allowed for further evolution, the temptation was there for men like those in the eugenics movement and those in nazi germany and those, today, who would experiment with hybreds and other genetic experiments, to push the evolution of man forard into some futuristic super human being.

In the end science and faith should be compatible and when they are not then something is wrong.

“As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.”

But the important thing to note that science cannot condone research that bypasses moral laws, like embyonic stem cell research, and that scientific theory cannot be contrary to Catholic moral teaching, because the natural world reflects the Divine order…

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I found this at a medical ethics website:

from a talk given by Pope Benedict on the value of the human person at every stage of development:

"God’s love does not differentiate between the newly conceived infant still in his or her mother’s womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the elderly person. God does not distinguish between them because he sees an impression of his own image and likeness (Gn 1: 26) in each one.
He makes no distinctions because he perceives in all of them a reflection of the face of his Only-begotten Son, whom “he chose… before the foundation of the world… He destined us in love to be his sons… according to the purpose of his will” (Eph 1: 4-6).

This boundless and almost incomprehensible love of God for the human being reveals the degree to which the human person deserves to be loved in himself, independently of any other consideration - intelligence, beauty, health, youth, integrity, and so forth. In short, human life is always a good, for it “is a manifestation of God in the world, a sign of his presence, a trace of his glory” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 34).

Indeed, the human person has been endowed with a very exalted dignity, which is rooted in the intimate bond that unites him with his Creator: a reflection of God’s own reality shines out in the human person, in every person, whatever the stage or condition of his life.

Therefore, the Magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the sacred and inviolable character of every human life from its conception until its natural end (cf. ibid., n. 57). This moral judgment also applies to the origins of the life of an embryo even before it is implanted in the mother’s womb, which will protect and nourish it for nine months until the moment of birth: “Human life is sacred and inviolable at every moment of existence, including the initial phase which precedes birth” (ibid., n. 61).

I know well, dear scholars, with what sentiments of wonder and profound respect for the human being you carry out your demanding and fruitful work of research precisely on the origin of human life itself it is a mystery on whose significance science will be increasingly able to shed light, even if it will be difficult to decipher it completely.

Indeed, as soon as reason succeeds in overcoming a limit deemed insurmountable, it will be challenged by other limits as yet unknown. Man will always remain a deep and impenetrable enigma.

In the fourth century, St Cyril of Jerusalem already offered the following reflection to the catechumens who were preparing to receive Baptism: “Who prepared the cavity of the womb for the procreation of children? Who breathed life into the inanimate fetus within it? Who knit us together with bones and sinews and clothed us with skin and flesh (cf. Jb 10: 11), and as soon as the child is born, causes the breast to produce an abundance of milk? How is it that the child, in growing, becomes an adolescent, and from an adolescent is transformed into a young man, then an adult and finally an old man, without anyone being able to identify the precise day on which the change occurred?”.

And he concluded: “O Man, you are seeing the Craftsman you are seeing the wise Creator” (Catechesi Battesimale, 9, 15-16).

At the beginning of the third millennium these considerations still apply. They are addressed not so much to the physical or physiological phenomenon as rather to its anthropological and metaphysical significance. We have made enormous headway in our knowledge and have defined more clearly the limits of our ignorance but it always seems too arduous for human intelligence to realize that in looking at creation, we encounter the impression of the Creator."

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE PARTICIPANTS AT THE 12th GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY FOR LIFE AND CONGRESS ON “THE HUMAN EMBRYO IN THE PRE-IMPLANTATION PHASE”
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060227_embrione-umano_en.html

This is so beautiful and show so much love and respect for life at all stages! It contrasts so sharply when you read Darwin’s description of the unborn fetus, likening the brain to some animal at a lower level of evolution, as if the embryo is not even a human being at all. I can easily see how accepting Darwin’s view of the human embryo would lead to abortion as a norm.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Mary, the very quote you offered had Darwin acknowledging that man was more than an animal, a being with a spiritual aspect.

Some naturalists, from being deeply impressed with the mental and spiritual powers of man, have divided the whole organic world into three kingdoms, the Human, the Animal, and the Vegetable, thus giving to man a separate kingdom. Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist: but he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in degree, however great, does not justify us in placing man in a distinct kingdom, Darwin, Descent of Man

Don’t you see that Darwin is saying the ‘mental’ powers of man do not differ from animal qualities, only in ‘degree’ not in kind…

You think animals can’t reason? They can. You think they can’t use senses to make judgements about their environment? You think they can’t love, grieve, experience joy and sorrow? It would be a sad life indeed, if we didn’t have our animal companions to share these things with us.

We are, of course, much smarter, and much more developed in intellect. But I’d be open to your demonstration that dogs are inferior to humans in emotion.

thus saying man cannot be given a separate definition from an animal.

But he didn’t say that, did he? He defined man as being an animal, but not merely an animal. What gripes you, Mary, is that Darwin has acknowledged a truth you would like him to not have acknowledged. He wrote here and elsewhere that humans are unique in having a spiritual side, and being endowed with rights to life and liberty.

This seems contrary to a Catholic definition

It’s rather odd that you think so.

But that does not say that man’s consciouness evolved slowly from lower forms. Nor does it say that all men have essentially the same soul which evolved over time. Nor does it say man’s consciousness can continue to evolve past the present day form.

"The theories that are sometimes put forward of the place of man in the universe, as destined to share in a development to which no limits can be assigned, rest upon the Spencerian theory that man is but “a highly-differentiated portion of the earth’s crust and gaseous envelope”, and ignore or deny the limitation imposed by the essential materiality and spirituality of human nature. If the intellectual faculties were indeed no more than the developed animal powers., there would seem to be no possibility of limiting their progress in the future. But since the soul of man is the result, not of evolution, but of creation, it is impossible to look forward to any such advance as would involve a change in man’s specific nature, or any essential difference in its relation to its material environment, in the physiological conditions under which it at present exists, or in its “relation” to its Divine Creator.
newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm​

The Catholic Church teaches the soul of every man is not the product of animal evolution.

That was Darwin’s conclusion, also. He wrote that the spiritual side of man was not a matter of nature, and not accessible to science.

In this regard Darwin is in error.

If so, you also assert that the Church is in error.

Since Darwin’s Theory does allow for the possibility of man evolving more and more into some kind of super being it is at odds with the church…

sciencedaily.com/news/mind_brain/addiction/

and no where does it seem that the church believes animals will evolve to be the rational beings which humans are. Man is given a separate and specific place in Creation, destined to be a 'Son of God" by adoption through grace. Since Christ took the form of a human being, and He is the Incarnate Son of God, how is it that we could begin to concieve that human forms would evolve past the form Christ, Himself, accepted.

But since Darwin’ Theory allowed for further evolution, the temptation was there for men like those in the eugenics movement and those in nazi germany and those, today, who would experiment with hybreds and other genetic experiments, to push the evolution of man forard into some futuristic super human being.

In the end science and faith should be compatible and when they are not then something is wrong.

“As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.”

But the important thing to note that science cannot condone research that bypasses moral laws, like embyonic stem cell research, and that scientific theory cannot be contrary to Catholic moral teaching, because the natural world reflects the Divine order…