Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[MaryJohnZ]

Somehow the post I had submitted was missing this quote which I had pulled from the 'M" +Mind, Man and Materialism; notebooks of Darwin:

I think this quote is a major quote to look at as it could be a building block for social Darwinian thought:

"Man) having some instincts as revenge and anger, which experience shows he must, for his happiness … check. That is, external circumstances are so conditioned as they are effecting a change in his instincts—like what is happening with other animals—is far from odd, nor is it odd he should have had them. With lesser intellect they might be necessary & no doubt were preservative & are now, like all other structures, slowly vanishing. The mind of man is no more perfect than instincts of animals to all & changing contingencies, or bodies of either. Our descent, then, is the origin of our evil passions. The Devil under form of Baboon is our grandfather. "
Charles Darwin the “M Notebooks”

So if Charles Darwin considers the material process the source of our evil, and the “Baboon” in us the source of our tendency toward violence, a complete negation of free will and conscience according to a Judeo/Christian view then what can we conclude those ideas lead to?

If the process of creation, set in motion by God is itself evil, as Darwin here says, then you would be led to a conclusion that
God was evil.

If the 'Baboon" was our predecessor and that was what brought about evil in the human person, then getting rid of the ‘baboon;’ as much as possible would lead to the perfect world.

So if you can tell some races. nationalities, cultures, personal;ity types are closer to the 'baboon, then by cleasing the human race of those types you come up with a perfect world…

Isn’t that exactly what the eugenics movement was about? Isn’t that exactly what the Nazis were doing?

Darwin was a person who struggled with things but in the end his conclusions and divergence toward materialism went way to far.
He set out in Descent of Man to explain the whole of the human person by way of material process. he did so knowingly. he could not resolve the idea that people were capably of evil without some kind of logic behind that and when he saw violence in nature, he linked the violence in man to his descent from lower animals…
the reslut was catastrophy for the policies which came out of that logic are well known as some of the greates evilof the twentieth century. I doubt that darwin had an inkling it could go in that direction, but he laid the foundation for the logic behind those movement.

I don’t know why the quote disappeared from my previous post.

In Christ MaryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

This article which went through Darwin’s writings and explained his metaphysical point of view was very interesting;

I am posting this explaination which is what I find to be true in darwin’s work. he tends to depnd on mind, habit and inheritance
to explain what is passed on to each generation. Some forms of insanity and social ills he described as being inherited. Something else that would tend toward a social Darwinist policy.

he replaces “God” with Nature" however, and this is what you are missing Barbarian:

Darwin’s Metaphysics of Mind
Page 172
"The last few lines of the Origin of Species reiterate the idea that the purpose of the “war of nature” has been “the production of the higher animals.”22 For Darwin, it was what was left of divine
purpose after God took leave. Nature came to inherit the mantle of the recently departed deity, displaying almost all of the divine powers—omniscience, benevolence, creativity, and wisdom. This is but to say that Darwin came to conceive of nature
as possessed of something like absolute mind."

ABSOLUTE MIND AND THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS
From the beginning of his theorizing, Darwin employed mind as a model for understanding the evolutionary process. In the initial pages of his first transmutation notebook, begun in 1837, he queried himself: “Each species changes. Does it progress.
Man gains ideas. The simplest cannot help—become more complicated; & if we look to first origin there must be progress.”23

Here the progressive character of mind became a way of understanding the progressive character of species
development.24 Also in this early notebook, Darwin employed a cognitive device to explain species adaptation. He had, in his pre-Malthusian work, proposed that species alteration would occur as the result of the direct effects of the environment—hence
animals in colder climates would produce heavier coats. He quickly realized, however, that direct environmental impact could hardly shape organisms to their surroundings in an intricate manner. In mid-1838, he suggested, alternatively, that an-
animals might develop habits that, if practiced over many generations, would become instinctive—that is, manifested without learning. These instincts, he believed,
would then come slowly to change anatomy. In this way, mind—expressed in acquired habit and instinct—could produce adaptations that more finely fitted an animal into its environment." So, for example, Darwin considered how habit might
modify the foot of the jaguar: “Fish being excessively abundant & tempting the Jaguar to use its feet much in swimming, & every development giving great vigour to the parent tending to produce effect on offspring—but whole race must take to that particular habit.—All structures either direct effect of habit, or hereditary & combined effect of habit.”25 Animal mind, then, could adapt individuals of a species to their particular surroundings,** and these adaptations would be delivered to descendants through inheritance.** Even after having arrived at his principal device
of evolutionary change—natural selection—Darwin never abandoned inherited habit as an auxiliary mode of alteration, and he also advanced it as a source of variation on which natural selection might operate.":

home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Darwinian%20Metaphysics.pdf
"

That is why one can call Darwin a materialist, not a Theist.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’m puzzled as to why you won’t accept what Darwin himself said about his opinions, but put faith in what people who hate him say about his opinions.

Well, after all this time, no I’m not puzzled.

Just disappointed. And disappointed that you seem to be again defending Ben Stein and his libelous dishonesties about science.

No scientists were ordering Jews into the gas chambers. He lied about that. In fact, as you know, his blanket approval of religion as bringing peace is belied by the fact that Hitler’s Final Solution came from a religious leader, not a scientist. Not all religion is good, Mary. Luther’s ideas about the Jews were appallingly evil.

Even Stein’s own people denounced his dishonesty and his excuses for the Nazis. Isn’t it time you laid this blood libel down?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I’m puzzled as to why you won’t accept what Darwin himself said about his opinions, but put faith in what people who hate him say about his opinions.

Well, after all this time, no I’m not puzzled.

Just disappointed. And disappointed that you seem to be again defending Ben Stein and his libelous dishonesties about science.

No scientists were ordering Jews into the gas chambers. He lied about that. In fact, as you know, his blanket approval of religion as bringing peace is belied by the fact that Hitler’s Final Solution came from a religious leader, not a scientist. Not all religion is good, Mary. Luther’s ideas about the Jews were appallingly evil.

Josef Mengeles, Angel of Death was a scietist/Doctor. he was selecting which prisoners should go toward the shower area or toward the work area at Auschwitz. If Ben’s relatives were there then he was telling the truth in a literal fashion…if they were at another campt he was telling the truth as well because science (even if it was false science) was used to support eugenics and the Nazi ideas of racial purity. the concept of this is in Darwin’s writings, although i doubt he would have approved or desired what the Nazi’s did. he was naive about where his ideas might lead.

Even Stein’s own people denounced his dishonesty and his excuses for the Nazis. Isn’t it time you laid this blood libel down?

Well some of the politicians denounced Ben Stein, but then if they are under the belief that the jewish people were the only victims of the Holocaust then they are not being honest either. The argument that you are making that it was all about Luther’s writings is nonsence.

---

As far as what Darwin said about the value of man the last quote seems to indicate a very dark opinion concerning man and the processof his creation, and points to ideas in the eugenics movement as I explained in my last post.

From the “M” Noteboork:
"The mind of man is no more perfect than instincts of animals to all & changing contingencies, or bodies of either. Our descent, then, is the origin of our evil passions. The Devil under form of Baboon is our grandfather. " Charles Darwin, “M” Notebooks

That is hardly recognizing the beauty of the human person as a unique creation with an image of God.

These are Darwin’s words…not anyone else’s.

In Christ, MaryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Even Stein’s own people denounced his dishonesty and his excuses for the Nazis. Isn’t it time you laid this blood libel down?

Well some of the politicians denounced Ben Stein,

No politicians I know about, but the Anti-Defamation League did. They are less angry about his lies about scientists than they are about his excuses for the Nazis and what they did.

The argument that you are making that it was all about Luther’s writings is nonsence.

As you learned, about 90% of the Finals Solution was in Luther’s recommendations for the Jews.

Loss of freedom, destruction of schools and synagogues, confiscation of wealth, forced labor, and relocation. It’s all there.

As far as what Darwin said about the value of man

He said it would be overwhelming evil to let even the least human die. He also opposed slavery and argued that all humans should be free.

That would certainly indicate a high regard for man’s value. Of course, Hitler and the eugenists disagreed with Darwin.

Which side are you on?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian observes:
Even Stein’s own people denounced his dishonesty and his excuses for the Nazis. Isn’t it time you laid this blood libel down?
No politicians I know about, but the Anti-Defamation League did. They are less angry about his lies about scientists than they are about his excuses for the Nazis and what they did.

**But the guide in charge of the holocaust museum in Germany which Stein visited said explicilty that Darwin was an influence of the Nazis. I really don’t care what the Jewish Defamation League is saying about this because I feel that sometimes the jewish people are in denial that other people were vicitims of the holocaust as well…that it wasn;t purely antiu-semitism that drove the Nazis.

Also I would have more respect for the anti-defamation league and fro the jewish leaders if they spoke against abortions in israel which are doing as much damage to their people as Hitler did, maybe more.[The fact that they don’t speak against the abortion of jewish children shows me that they are disconnected to reality in more than one way[/COLOR]**

As you learned, about 90% of the Finals Solution was in Luther’s recommendations for the Jews. Loss of freedom, destruction of schools and synagogues, confiscation of wealth, forced labor, and relocation. It’s all there.

**…those types of actions are a part of lots of genocide movements. The fact that Hitler defined mixed blood Germans as ‘Jewish’ and also went after disabled, gypsies, other groups shows that this was more that antisemetic. it was about racial purity and that idea that racial purity **was necessary for advancement came out of Darwin.

He said it would be overwhelming evil to let even the least human die. He also opposed slavery and argued that all humans should be free.

That would certainly indicate a high regard for man’s value. Of course, Hitler and the eugenists disagreed with Darwin.

---

Eugenicists disagreed with Hitler?

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE WORD “EUGENICS” MEANT WHEN IT WAS COINED BY GALTON, DARWIN"S COUSIN?
Do you think he was just talking about handing out vitamins or social healthcare programs to help the poor/ No Galton thought that the poor and weak members of society held back evolution. He specifically wrote to Darwin, his own cousin, and tyold him he saw evoltuion as a ‘new religion’ and that there may come a time when the need to protect and help society would mean setting aside rules to protect the weak. See this website for the information on this,

Darwin at Nuremberg Part II
:[thedarw(name removed by moderator)apers.com/oldsite/number13/number13.html](http://www.thedarw(name removed by moderator)apers.com/oldsite/number13/number13.html)

definition of eugenics;
" Eugenics is the study of methods to improve the human race by controlling reproduction. The word was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. Galton believed that the proper evolution of the human race was thwarted by philanthropic outreach to the poor; misguided charity encouraged the “unfit” to bear more children. This upset the mechanism of natural selection. Hence, the human race needed a kind of artificial selection, which he called “eugenics,” from Greek for good birth. Galton wanted eugenics to develop from a science to a policy and finally into a religion. *1
eugenics-watch.com/intro.html

Glatron was inspired by Darwin’s Descent of Man…and Darwin mentions Glaton in his writings, so they were familiar with what eachother was proposing and were not antagonists as you would propose:

In 1904, Galton endowed a research chair in eugenics at University College, London University. In Germany in 1905, Dr. Alfred Ploetz and Dr. Ernst Rudin founded the Gesellschaft f½r Rassenhygiene or Society of Race-Hygiene. In 1907 in England, the Eugenic Education Society (later the Eugenics Society) was founded. In 1910, the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was founded in the United States. The ERO had a different emphasis from the Birth Control League which sought “fewer children for labouring classes”; the ERO felt that “ultimate economic betterment should be sought by breeding better people, not fewer of the existing sort.” *11
The First International Eugenics Congress was held was held at London University in 1912. Representatives came from a number of nations, and the congress demonstrated the growing strength of the movement especially in England, Germany and the United States.
In October 1916, Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States. Several months later, she founded the Birth Control Review. She and her co-workers incorporated the American Birth Control League in 1922. (The organisation was renamed the Birth Control Federation of America in 1939, and in 1942 was renamed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. *12) She wrote: “Birth control is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator … the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’ is admittedly the greatest present menace to civilisation … The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.” *13
eugenics-watch.com/intro.html

Which side are you on?

I am on the side of 'Life" and believe no one has a right to choose which person should live and which person should die. The history of eugenics has been a negative history in our country and it is still being played out. Why are you not expressing horror at sex selection abortions? Why are you not horrified at the other evil realitites of social darwinism still present in our world?

Yesterday there was a news story about a man in Portlanmd oregon who had terminal cancer. His insurance company wrote him a letter that they would not cover cancer treatments for him but that assisted suicide would be paid for. Can you imagine being told that an organization will pay to have you killed? That is social Darwinism alive and well in our country today. The eugenics people never argued against this stuff…it is what they are all about. Glaton, the one who coined the word ‘eugenics’ was Charles Darwin’s cousin and he was inspired by the 'Descent of Man"

In Christ, maryJohnZ

In Christ

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian points out that Darwin denounced eugenics and considered humans to have rights to life and liberty)
Which side are you on?

I am on the side of 'Life" and believe no one has a right to choose which person should live and which person should die.

Then why are you denouncing people who asserted the same thing? And why are you making excuses for those who thought only the strong should live?

Why are you not expressing horror at sex selection abortions?

Mary, I consider all abortions evil. This is what I’m talking about. You can’t pick and chose. It’s wrong or it’s not.

Why are you not horrified at the other evil realitites of social darwinism still present in our world?

I’m horrified at all cruelty of humans against other humans. It’s just that things like religious extremism, greed, and political ambition are far more damaging to the world right now.

Yesterday there was a news story about a man in Portlanmd oregon who had terminal cancer. His insurance company wrote him a letter that they would not cover cancer treatments for him but that assisted suicide would be paid for. Can you imagine being told that an organization will pay to have you killed? That is social Darwinism alive and well in our country today.

No, that is Justices Rheinquist, Scalia, Thomas, Souter, and Kennedy, telling Americans that they cannot sue their HMOs, regardless of their actions, however reprehensible and damaging.

The eugenics people never argued against this stuff…i

Never thought of Scalia as a eugenist. But he sure acts like one.

Glaton, the one who coined the word ‘eugenics’ was Charles Darwin’s cousin and he was inspired by the 'Descent of Man"

Jim Jones was inspired by the Bible. Sometimes, that’s not enough. Sometimes, you also have to get it right. Do you think anyone is persuaded by the “guilt by relatives” argument?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

No, that is Justices Rheinquist, Scalia, Thomas, Souter, and Kennedy, telling Americans that they cannot sue their HMOs, regardless of their actions, however reprehensible and damaging.

Never thought of Scalia as a eugenist. But he sure acts like one.

Oh, so are you admitting the court was putting social darwinian philosophy into play when they legitimitized abortion?

Jim Jones was inspired by the Bible. Sometimes, that’s not enough. Sometimes, you also have to get it right. Do you think anyone is persuaded by the “guilt by relatives” argument?

If Galton was ‘getting it wrong’ Darwin was alive and could have corrected him…they knew eachother…why didn’t he? Why did Darwin quote Galton in his own writiing.

Doesn’t make sense if Darwin opposed his ideas.

“As a cousin of Charles Darwin’s, Galton apparently had an extensive correspondence with Darwin and with many other luminaries of that century. It was this relationship with Charles Darwin, whose book had a great influence on Galton, that determined for him the need to support these evolutionary ideas with a statistical underpinning. Galton thus used his polymath abilities and made it possible for Darwin to become more widely accepted scientifically.”

jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/95/3/273

“Extenisive correspondence”!!! even helped Darwin become more widely accepted!!! Doesn’t sound to me l;ike darwin argued against Galton’s eugenics ideas…

And the same article adds this:

"Galton also created the term “eugenics,” with the idea of gradually leading mankind to a superior class of people, and he may be maligned for that in retrospect. He advocated, for instance, the marriage of intelligent partners to enhance society. He also can be seen as the scientific authority that led to the later American and European versions of this unfortunate chapter in biology that we so much wish to forget. His suggestions were made without malicious forethought and merely with the hope of advancing mankind beyond its then present state. "

This writer is a scientist and a fan of Galton…but he honestly admits the connection here between galton and what happened in germany, why don’t you?

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

[Barbarian said:
Mary, I consider **all abortions evil. This is what I’m talking about. You can’t pick and chose. It’s wrong or it’s not.
I’m horrified at all cruelty of humans against other humans. It’s just that things like religious extremism, greed, and political ambition are far more damaging to the world right now.

I am relieved to hear you say that but dismayed at the same time because you are linking abortion, euthansia to the wrong groups!

As far as abortion, euthanasia being linked to a ‘religious’ tree or root…how do you get that? The only religious group pushing abortion and euthanasia is the secular progressive religion or the Unitarian Universalists (who can believe anything). Pope Benedict, fundamental Protestants are opposed to those social policies. That is a well known fact.

I can see ‘greed’ being a main factor in those policies. Drug companies, even Doctors who get kick backs from certain presecitions they give out…and secular scientists who have no reason to think birth control or embryonic research are wrong. But again, what religious group 9traditional Christian) supports any of that?

So we are together in opposing the same policies and I am baffled completely how you lay the blame on religious peop[le.

But you also seem to support PP programs!!! That dismays me as well. They pass out abrotifacent drugs. If you oppose ALL abortions, why not oppose those as well?[/COLOR]

No, that is Justices Rheinquist, Scalia, Thomas, Souter, and Kennedy, telling Americans that they cannot sue their HMOs, regardless of their actions, however reprehensible and damaging.

Souter, is a left wing justice who will tend to support abortion. Don’t think Thomas would…democrats want to make it a necessary part of a judges’ beliefs that they support abortion and ‘women’s rights to choose’ inorder to get on the supreme court. Again those are the left wing liberal secular progressives, not the religious people in our country./COLOR]

Never thought of Scalia as a eugenist. But he sure acts like one.

Please tell me why. Don’t know what you are referring to.

Jim Jones was inspired by the Bible. Sometimes, that’s not enough. Sometimes, you also have to get it right. Do you think anyone is persuaded by the “guilt by relatives” argument?

From my last post you can see there is a big difference between Jim Jones being influences or inspired by the bible and Galton. Jim Jones had no contact with the apostles or the people writing the scriptutres or early church fathers, while Galton knew Darwin, extensively wrote to darwin, was quoted by Darwin, was related to Darwin…the ‘influence’ was not a distant matter, it was one of intimacy.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Can we say the recent desecration of the Consecrated Host by the biology professor, Myers, is related to this thread?
Why would an educated man do something like that which is so intollerant toward a group of people Catholics and Christians, simply becuase he cannot believe in the real presence. The only answer can be is that the act represented his scorn for 'Faith" , at least “Faith” in God and the idea of a God who could enter His own Creation. I think the only kind of ‘faith’ that is respected by myers is ‘faith in facts and scientific analysis’.

In that sense he, and other such scientists, educators and politicians has endorsed godlessness by creating a view that anything unexplainable by human reason is
considered ‘myth’ and all unknowable things which have a nature of something which cannot be ‘proved’ should be disregarded, like the Sacred Host he pierced and than threw in the garbage… But what replaces the idea of God and religion but ‘science’!. Science becomes the new godless religion.

"Currently, Myers is under fire from his university and an army of righteous Catholics over his self-proclaimed “Great Desecration” caper. On July 24, he pierced a Communion wafer with a rusty nail (“I hope Jesus’ tetanus shots are up to date,” he quipped) and threw it in the trash with coffee grounds and a banana peel. The nail also cut through pages of the Quran and Dawkins’ “The God Delusion.” He featured a photo of the “desecration” on his blog, and wrote, “Nothing must be held sacred. God is not great, Jesus is not your lord, you are not disciples of any charismatic prophet.”

From a blog of another scientist who writes about Myers::
"Religion is dangerous, he wrote; it breeds hatred and idiocy. It is our job to advance humanity’s knowledge “by winnowing out the errors of past generations and finding deeper understanding of reality.” There is no wisdom in our dogmas, Myers warned, just “self-satisfied ignorance.” We find truth only in science, looking at the world “with fresh eyes and a questioning mind.”
salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/31/religion_science/

I think that this trend on the part of Dawkins, Myers and others scientists IS dangerous and will lead to death once again if we don’t speak up and stop it. I am truly alarmed at such obvious hatred for people of faith and for religion in general.

Whether Barbarian comes back to this forum or not, I feel that Ben Stein’s documentary 'Expelled" was needed and was a warning to all of us of what putting science over and above God can bring us to. The arguments about Darwin that we seemed to get mired in just show how important it is for all scientists to realize that they cannot put any one scientist such as Darwin so far above crtiticism that they become like a ‘secular saint’ and no scientific research should be beyond questioning as if it were absolute dogma, especially something as unfounded as Darwin’s writings were in “Descent of Man”.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No, that is Justices Rheinquist, Scalia, Thomas, Souter, and Kennedy, telling Americans that they cannot sue their HMOs, regardless of their actions, however reprehensible and damaging.

Never thought of Scalia as a eugenist. But he sure acts like one.

Oh, so are you admitting the court was putting social darwinian philosophy into play when they legitimitized abortion?

You’re confused again. Remember, Darwinians objected to classical eugenics. Darwin assailed that thinking as “evil.” Your people, Mary. Not Darwinians.

(Barbarian on the idea that if it’s “inspired by the Bible” it’s good)
Jim Jones was inspired by the Bible. Sometimes, that’s not enough. Sometimes, you also have to get it right. Do you think anyone is persuaded by the “guilt by relatives” argument?

(Argument that Darwin was accountable for Galton’s beliefs)

Sorry; the Church says each of us is responsible for our own actions and beliefs.

Attempting to apply guilt by association is intrinsically dishonest, Mary. You should avoid it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Can we say the recent desecration of the Consecrated Host by the biology professor, Myers, is related to this thread?

No, but it appears you’ve abandoned your defense of Stein’s libelous accusations, and are looking for something defensible.

Whether Barbarian comes back to this forum or not, I feel that Ben Stein’s documentary 'Expelled" was needed

It has been useful, but not the way Stein was expecting. His reputation is now in tatters after public exposure of his numerous lies. Perhaps even more egregious than his claim that scientists were sending people into the gas chambers was his denial of the causes of the Holocaust. He has drifted farther and farther to the political right that he is now excusing the Nazi atrocities. Even the Anti-Defamation League has denounced his denials.

The arguments about Darwin that we seemed to get mired in just show how important it is for all scientists to realize that they cannot put any one scientist such as Darwin so far above crtiticism that they become like a ‘secular saint’ and no scientific research should be beyond questioning as if it were absolute dogma, especially something as unfounded as Darwin’s writings were in “Descent of Man”.

You really think that’s what happened? Darwin’s theory has been frequently and broadly criticized by Darwinians, and has been changed over time as he was wrong in some regards. Your hatred for him has led you to think that anyone who sees the good in Darwin has made him a “secular saint.”

Such hysterical overreaction does you no good, Mary.

 

[RobbyS]

I never said what they teach. I noted that many states have turned down federal money for them, because they cause the problems they were meant to solve.

I cited a study that showed it to be true. You have since admitted what it shows. After almost a decade of abstinence only, the kids in those programs show more sexual experimentation, more STDs, and more pregnancies.

It’s a failure, Mary. One that damages these kids badly, often permanently.

Since he admitted we have them, and since he asserted that God created life, it would seem rather perverse to deny it.

He had trouble with big numbers and science generally. But he was a pretty good poet; I like “Lepanto” in many ways.

It did. It was someone else quote-mining Chesterton for statements about Darwin. Here’s two gems of complete misrepresentation from that site:

Darwinists, he wrote, see everything in “gray graduations of twilight”, because they believe it is the twilight of the gods."

And:

Christ had an immortal human soul. Darwinists insist that there is no such thing.

I don’t think so. Chesterton probably wasn’t very well acquainted with what Darwinists thought, but I doubt very much if he was a complete moron, as your site presents him to be.

The basic problem is approaching sexuality as a “subject” like math or science. The schools are ill-equipped to teach morals, especially if what they teach gooes against what society at large is teaching. That goes for the morality of contraception, which is why most sex education classes that teach the use of condoms/pill/etc are a joke. A boy might agree to use “protection” if he really cares about the girl he is having sex with, but if it is just casual sex and the girl does not refuse him unless he has the protection, he won’t, because it interfers with his pleasure. The girl is hardly more likely to desist because the whole thing is to have sex freely, and she may not even bother with the pill because it is too much trouble to take it on a regular basis, and as she knows that she is unlikely to get pregnant anyway, just from a casual encounter. The pill took away the fear that was a great inhibitor in the old days, and the desire to be “cool” took away much of the natural caution against being intimate with a stranger.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

All of us are influenced by others…and it is our responsibility as to what influences us but it is also our responsibility how we influence other people, what example we give good and bad. I believe Darwin was a bad example and his writings in Descent of Man were a basis for a godless approach tot the human person, which took away human dignity and made him a being created by processes, and materialistic forces…nothing more. The basis for right and wrong became a matter of cultural environments, not universal right and wrong. Darwin silenced the ‘voice of God’ in the human heart and soul by explaining human conscience in this way.

As far as the idea that the Myer’s desecration is irrelevant, the blog I provided is by a scientist and he refers to other darwinists such as Dawkins…so i do think it is relevant. it shows how much darwin is being used as a foundation for these bad ideas just as he was used as a foundation for the bad ideas in eugenics and the Nazi’s pure racial policies…

the subject for this forum is not Darwin per say, but whether science in wrong perspective (godless), can lead to killing and death. The dramatic desecration and blaspheme against Christ, the Lord of Life, by the biologist shows that science used as a godless religion can take that direction.

In the end I think we are talking past each other on this and I think you do agree that is true. You want to believe that Darwin inserted faith into his writings and I say he killed faith. Both of us agree that evolution can still be understood…but I think another view of evolution, one that allows for the influence of God directly, should be followed.

As a Catholic you cannot possibly agree with Myer’s statements about science and religion. How would you submit science to faith? How would you talk to Myers or Dawkins given the opportunity?

In Christ, maryJohnz

 

[MaryJohnZ]

The basic problem is approaching sexuality as a “subject” like math or science. The schools are ill-equipped to teach morals, especially if what they teach gooes against what society at large is teaching. That goes for the morality of contraception, which is why most sex education classes that teach the use of condoms/pill/etc are a joke. A boy might agree to use “protection” if he really cares about the girl he is having sex with, but if it is just casual sex and the girl does not refuse him unless he has the protection, he won’t, because it interfers with his pleasure. The girl is hardly more likely to desist because the whole thing is to have sex freely, and she may not even bother with the pill because it is too much trouble to take it on a regular basis, and as she knows that she is unlikely to get pregnant anyway, just from a casual encounter. The pill took away the fear that was a great inhibitor in the old days, and the desire to be “cool” took away much of the natural caution against being intimate with a stranger.

---

Thanks Robby!
That is all true and i agree with you 100%
Some of the reason the schools are teaching this as a subject like science and history is because the human person is approached on a level of materialism (secular progressive approach to personhood)

That is why Comprehensive Sex program have very little content about the emotional ,spiritual effects on a person who has early sexual relationships and multiple partners, broken trust, and even worse the harm done to a woman when faced with an abortion.
These programs emphasize being comfortable with your body and its responses. They place great emphasis on labeling of parts as if the ability to name parts of a woman’s or man’s genitalia makes a person more wise in using them. But this goes back to the idea that a materialistic approach to a human person in science, is faulty and wrong and leads to death…spiritual, emotional, and physical death in the case of a young person becoming sick with HIV or in the case of an unplanned pregnancy that ends in abortion. All those things are the sad conclusions of these programs.

The Pope (Paul VI) who wrote the encyclical Humanae Vitae was truly giving us a prophetic document.
We forget that the church said use of the pill was a mortal sin and so many Catholics think the church will change its opinion on this still:

pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopleevents/e_humvit.html
"In addition to condemning abortion and sterilization, the Pope singled out the Pill for its role in separating the act of sex from procreation. The Pill, Humanae Vitae declared, “opened up a wide and easy road… toward conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Man, growing used to contraceptive practices, may lose respect for the woman and come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.”

---

That is what has happened with the casual way sex is talked about in these school programs.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

The basic problem is approaching sexuality as a “subject” like math or science. The schools are ill-equipped to teach morals, especially if what they teach gooes against what society at large is teaching.

Indeed. It’s why abstinence works better when churches do it. In schools, it seems to actually make things worse.

 

[The_Barbarian]

All of us are influenced by others…and it is our responsibility as to what influences us but it is also our responsibility how we influence other people, what example we give good and bad. I believe Darwin was a bad example and his writings in Descent of Man were a basis for a godless approach tot the human person, which took away human dignity and made him a being created by processes, and materialistic forces…nothing more.

Since Darwin specifically said otherwise, it appears that you are determined to change Darwin’s opinion for him.

As far as the idea that the Myer’s desecration is irrelevant, the blog I provided is by a scientist and he refers to other darwinists such as Dawkins…so i do think it is relevant.

Sorry. I can see why you want to change the subject, but no.

You want to believe that Darwin inserted faith into his writings

He acknowledged God as Creator, after all.

As a Catholic you cannot possibly agree with Myer’s statements about science and religion.

I’m surprised you think that could be an option, Mary.

How would you submit science to faith? How would you talk to Myers or Dawkins given the opportunity?

I don’t think I could speak to them about faith, any more than I could speak to Benjamin Stein about the Holocaust. They are so firmly in denial that I’d get nowhere with them.

The Church is very clear about the roles of science and faith. What about it bothers you?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I don’t think I could speak to them about faith, any more than I could speak to Benjamin Stein about the Holocaust. They are so firmly in denial that I’d get nowhere with them.

The Church is very clear about the roles of science and faith. What about it bothers you?

The church says that theology has the final say over science.
Would you say that to Darwin and think he would accept it?
The church says that any form of evolution that is materialistic and denys that God intervened to create man’s soul in a special way as God’s own image. Would Darwin accpet that as true since he says the opposite?

science is at the service of faith and not to be used to attack faith, which is what is happening ni many situations. I think Darwin’s Descent of Man was an attack on faith.

"With this task, the Church and all Christians are at the center of the debate of these times of ours. An adequate solution of the pressing questions about the meaning of human existence, norms of action, and the prospects of a more far-reaching hope, is possible only in the renewed connection between scientific thought and the power of faith in man in search of truth. The pursuit of a new humanism, on which the future of the third millennium can be based, will be successful only on condition that scientific knowledge again enters upon a living relationship with the truth revealed to man as God’s gift. Man’s reason is a grand instrument for knowledge and structuring of the world. It needs, however, in order to realize the whole wealth of human possibilities, to open to the Word of eternal Truth, which became man in Christ. "
John Paul II
its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci80111.html

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian on atheism and Holocaust denial:
I don’t think I could speak to them about faith, any more than I could speak to Benjamin Stein about the Holocaust. They are so firmly in denial that I’d get nowhere with them.

The Church is very clear about the roles of science and faith. What about it bothers you?

The church says that theology has the final say over science.
Would you say that to Darwin and think he would accept it?

The Church has an interest in science, only so far as it speaks to the doctrines of the Church. In those cases, we are compelled to accept the Church’s direction.

This is why the Church neither endorses nor denies theories like gravity or evolution, even though Popes have said that they are factual.

The church says that any form of evolution that is materialistic and denys that God intervened to create man’s soul in a special way as God’s own image. Would Darwin accpet that as true

Since he acknowledged God’s role as creator, and the existence of a spiritual side to man, I suppose he would have, at least when he was doing his research. He did acknowledge the soul as being beyond the understanding of science. As the church notes, Darwin is correct in asserting that our bodies were formed by nature; our souls are the image of God.

(Pope John Paul II’s call for a new humanism)

Very good, and something Darwinians could support.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian on atheism and Holocaust denial:
I don’t think I could speak to them about faith, any more than I could speak to Benjamin Stein about the Holocaust. They are so firmly in denial that I’d get nowhere with them.

The Church is very clear about the roles of science and faith. What about it bothers you?

The Church has an interest in science, only so far as it speaks to the doctrines of the Church. In those cases, we are compelled to accept the Church’s direction.

This is why the Church neither endorses nor denies theories like gravity or evolution, even though Popes have said that they are factual.

Since he acknowledged God’s role as creator, and the existence of a spiritual side to man, I suppose he would have, at least when he was doing his research. He did acknowledge the soul as being beyond the understanding of science. As the church notes, Darwin is correct in asserting that our bodies were formed by nature; our souls are the image of God.

(Pope John Paul II’s call for a new humanism)

Very good, and something Darwinians could support.

Defin ition of ‘spoul’ from catholic encyclopedia:

: Various theories as to the nature of the soul have claimed to be reconcilable with the tenet of immortality, but it is a sure instinct that leads us to suspect every attack on the substantiality or spirituality of the soul as an assault on the belief in existence after death. 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 stood out for me in this passage on the soul from the Catholic Enyclopedia is that denying the existence of a soul is an attack on life after death. I feel that Darwin did attack the reality of a soul in his work. That his growing tendency toward agnosticism and materialism caused him to try to explain things materially…even calling thoughts a form of excretion of the brain…
and thus laid groundwork for seeing only a present reality and no lasting meaning to human existence. Thus stealing the total dignity of the person.