Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[MaryJohnZ]

Again, MaryJohnZ, you have offered no evidence that science kills people. You are confusing “science” as a methodology and an epistemology with the people whose evil actions presuppose scientific knowledge. Abortionists kill unborn babies, sometimes by interrupting their physiologies in horrific ways. How dare you imply that scientists who study fetal physiology are therefore baby killers, or contribute to baby killing?

You did not read what I said. i said “Science Without God”, As a Catholic woman who believes that if you believe in God, that belief is tantamont to “fact”. You can not say the Creed and then say when I am in my lab God does not exist because I am only dealing with facts of nature. God exists everywhere and in every aspect of life and how you approach life. If you tell me that is not possible in a science laborartory then you are basically saying Christians cannot be scientists.

Now does that mean you have to wear your Christian belief on your sleeve in the laboratory or show yourself in a ridiculous light? Of course not. You can work side by side with secular scientists, but you have a responsibility to speak up against using embryos tor research. You have a responsibility to speak up against using body parts from aborted babies for research of any kind or as part of vaccinations. You have a responsibility to advocate for a view of the human person that includes the fact that there is a psychological aspect, emotional aspect to a person which would be related to their soul and spirit.

There is so much scientific moral outrage on some issues, such as global warming and on others there is so much silence such as the psychological harm of abortion

In other words. a Christian/Catholic scientist serves God first, always…that is what being a Catholic/Christian should men. Since this is a Catholic forum I am taking for granted i am talking to Catholic scientists.

I run into the same thing in the arts. People have the idea that true freedom in the arts means being able to say and do anything. That would make art a God-free-zone. The results in that 'God-free-zone- are usually degarding to the human person, sometimes violent, images that are dark and can harm others by leaving that dark impression on them. So I believe the same thing in my field. God is a fact I don’t leave outside the studio door and in subtle ways, I allow God into the secular classroom I teach as well. It is just that you have to be prayerful and wise in how you do that.

Allowing discussions of ID would be a wise, careful way of allowing God into the equation at least as a possibility, not as a direct statement of belief. That can only be a positive thing.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Pardon me for this important interruption:

A Message from Ben Stein’s Grandson (wmv video)

Phil P

That video did not represent Ben Steins viewpoint.

For educated, professional people the comments by the scientists here tend to be wrought with emotion rather than clear logical thought. They comments also tend to villify ID people by use of sarcasm, stereotyping and over-simplification which is what this video does.

God Bless and help us with His Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth,

MaryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Allowing discussions of ID would be a wise, careful way of allowing God into the equation at least as a possibility, not as a direct statement of belief.

I have no problems with anyone discussing a non-Catholic religion like ID. Confusing it with science is a problem. But how does that relate to Stein’s false accusation that science kills people?

 

[drpmjhess]

There isn’t anything more unjust then handing a death sentence to the unborn child who absolutely had no voice or ability to speak on his own behalf. If you are a Christian then you can see the difference. .

Of course, but handing a death sentence to a fetus is no more “science” than slitting someone’s throat is “science,” even if scientific and technological research went into making a sharper knife.

As the anti-gun-control nuts would say, “science doesn’t kill fetal people; people kill fetal people.”

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Of course, but handing a death sentence to a fetus is no more “science” than slitting someone’s throat is “science,” even if scientific and technological research went into making a sharper knife.

As the anti-gun-control nuts would say, “science doesn’t kill fetal people; people kill fetal people.”

Right now the “personhood” of the unborn child has not been defined by science. In fact I would say science has a problem in defining “personhhod”. Obviously life has begun from the first moment of conception. Since 'Life" is a primary 'Right" mentioned in the Decalration of Independence, then perhaps science should be backing the rights of the most helpless among us by sustaining the fact that “life” is indeed present at this early stage. But where is science? Or scientists or doctors or nurses when that argument needs to be made in the town square.

Science co-operates with killing unborn children by not making the argument loud and clear to the general public. The people who kill the unborn child are backing their ‘right’ with arguments from scientists.

That is different from the anti-gun control argument.

gun= inanimate object, has no will of its own cannot act on its own.

person using gun: has the complete freedom choice to use it for good or evil. This is not controlled by the ownership of the gun.

science: defines the beginning of life at stake in the abortion rights issue.

science: fails to stand up for the beginning of life and personhood

Actions of public: undirected, confused because science has failed in a basic responsibility to assert what is true

abortionist: feels justified by science or non-application of science to proceed to killing life.

In a sense science should be working to help create a moral social conscience that protects life as a matter of course and instead it co-operates with other agendas such as population control and fails in its role to draw humanity toward a higher consciousness or ideal of compassion.

John Paul II, Champion of Life, pray for us.
MaryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I have no problems with anyone discussing a non-Catholic religion like ID. Confusing it with science is a problem. But how does that relate to Stein’s false accusation that science kills people?

ID is not a religion. Darwinism is near to an anti-Catholic/Christian religion from what I can see of the debate of ‘fish’ on the backs of cars these days.

Explain why you think ID is so anti-Catholic and why you define it as a ‘religion’?

 

[tonyl]

science: defines the beginning of life at stake in the abortion rights issue.

science: fails to stand up for the beginning of life and personhood

Huh? That makes no sense whatsoever. Because scientists, much like society in general, have differing religious and philosophical views about the issue, the entire field of science is evil and responsible for Abortion? You’ve also not cleared up how this is different from guns or the death penalty.

Scientists: produced the technologies used in war, murder, and the death penalty. Indeed, they continue to do so.

Scientists: fail to stand up for a fundamental right to life of people by opposing the death penalty, war, etc.

I just don’t understand why you choose to slander an entire profession, one that created the technologies that we are using to converse, simply because some of them don’t share our religion. I also don’t understand why you don’t apply the same standard to plumbers, architects, etc.

 

[drpmjhess]

Right now the “personhood” of the unborn child has not been defined by science. In fact I would say science has a problem in defining “personhhod”.
science: defines the beginning of life at stake in the abortion rights issue.

Science is not competent to define “personhood” as that is not a scientific but a philosophical and theological concept. You are equivocating when you refer to science as “defining the beginning of life” and equating it to defining personhood. The two concepts are logically distinct.

Now, in the case of scientists who are Catholics, we have a right to expect that they would support the sanctity of human life, not because they are scientists (since that is not the province of science), but because of their Catholic faith.

Petrus

 

[tonyl]

ID is not a religion. Darwinism is near to an anti-Catholic/Christian religion from what I can see of the debate of ‘fish’ on the backs of cars these days.

Huh? The science of evolution is both a religion and anti-Catholic? Even though the Church has explicitly said that there is no conflict between the two?

Or are you defining “Darwinism” in a way that would only apply to a handful of people and therefore couldn’t honestly be used to tar an entire profession?

As to the fish on the backs of the car, the Darwin fish was a reasonable response to evangelicals who were attempting to force young earth creationism into schools. The first ones to go on the offense were the evangelicals with their stupid truth fish swallowing darwin fish. Again, you’ve swallowed the non-catholic evangelical idea that evolution is incompatible with religion hook, line, and sinker. Why do you find evangelicals more believable than the Pope?

 

[drpmjhess]

Again, you’ve swallowed the non-catholic evangelical idea that evolution is incompatible with religion hook, line, and sinker. Why do you find evangelicals more believable than the Pope?

Interesting point, tonyl. But do you need to assume MaryJohnZ is Catholic, particularly if she is spouting an evangelical, non-Catholic line? I’m not sure, but think anybody can post on CAF.

 

[The_Barbarian]

ID is not a religion.

That’s already settled. The Wedge Document, inadvertently released by the guys who invented ID, admits that it’s a religion.

Darwinism is near to an anti-Catholic/Christian religion

Odd then, that the Pope says that the central claim of Darwinism is virtually certain.

Explain why you think ID is so anti-Catholic

It denies the teaching of the Church.

and why you define it as a ‘religion’?

The guys who invented it, admitted in writing that it’s purpose is to advance their idea of god.

 

[drpmjhess]

Odd then, that the Pope says that the central claim of Darwinism is virtually certain.

Maybe she means that the pope is not really Catholic.

 

[Orogeny]

Interesting point, tonyl. But do you need to assume MaryJohnZ is Catholic, particularly if she is spouting an evangelical, non-Catholic line? I’m not sure, but think anybody can post on CAF.

No, you should assume that she is Catholic because she has stated that she is.

Can we all cut out the silly attempts to define other’s faith based on their stances on this issue?

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

No, you should assume that she is Catholic because she has stated that she is. Can we all cut out the silly attempts to define other’s faith based on their stances on this issue?PeaceTim

Tim, I had not read where she stated that, so my question was genuine. And, for the record, I cannot even begin to count the number of times that people on Catholic Answers (even yesterday) have insulted my own catholicity, or challenged my right to teach as a Catholic theologian.

Petrus

 

[ricmat]

That’s already settled. The Wedge Document, inadvertently released by the guys who invented ID, admits that it’s a religion.

The guys who invented it, admitted in writing that it’s purpose is to advance their idea of god.

Here’s the wedge document, and the response from the Discovery Institute. Those who are interested can read it and see what it really says.

 

[Orogeny]

Tim, I had not read where she stated that, so my question was genuine. And, for the record, I cannot even begin to count the number of times that people on Catholic Answers (even yesterday) have insulted my own catholicity, or challenged my right to teach as a Catholic theologian.

Petrus

I understand since I have the same thing happen to me quite frequently here. Bottom line, it doesn’t really matter. She identified herself as a Catholic woman in her posts and she identifies herself as Catholic in her profile.

One doesn’t have to accept science to be Catholic nor does one have to reject science to be Catholic. I just think that questioning whether or not someone is Catholic based on their positions on this topic is unneccessary and it is not helpful in the discussion.

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

One doesn’t have to accept science to be Catholic nor does one have to reject science to be Catholic. I just think that questioning whether or not someone is Catholic based on their positions on this topic is unneccessary and it is not helpful in the discussion.PeaceTim

OK, I see now where I can look at someone’s profile; I hadn’t done that before.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Huh? That makes no sense whatsoever. Because scientists, much like society in general, have differing religious and philosophical views about the issue, the entire field of science is evil and responsible for Abortion? You’ve also not cleared up how this is different from guns or the death penalty.

what does that have to do with a basic definition for the beginning of ‘life’?

Scientists: produced the technologies used in war, murder, and the death penalty. Indeed, they continue to do so.

Scientists: fail to stand up for a fundamental right to life of people by opposing the death penalty, war, etc.

Sorry but your post is unclear to me in its logic. Are you supporting the scientist who produce these ‘technologies’ and saying they are not a part of a ‘culture of death’ or are you agreeing that scientist are part of the problem. The above highlighted areas would make it seem you agree that science has contributed negatively in these areas and yet you end with a statement that nullifies that? I find the above statement confusing.

I just don’t understand why you choose to slander an entire profession, one that created the technologies that we are using to converse, simply because some of them don’t share our religion. I also don’t understand why you don’t apply the same standard to plumbers, architects, etc.

I do agree that there are good scientists who are trying to work for good and are working against the culture of death in which we find ourselves, but overall I find few professionals in the medical field willing to stand up and support life against a drug and abortion industry. Greed is definitely a basis for much of these problems.
Lack of courage may be another and perhaps these people are afraid of losing their jobs or professional standing.

And I do hold the same standard for all professonals, but scientists, medical professionals, obviously have a greater degree of influence in these debates than professional plumbers.

If doctors are aware that encouraging premarital sex endangers young people and that abstinence is the best message for them, as even Planned Parenthood would say, then why are they not lobbying for young people to “just say no” the same way the lobbied for that message against drugs and smoking?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

That’s already settled. The Wedge Document, inadvertently released by the guys who invented ID, admits that it’s a religion.

Perhaps those paricular people translate ID in that manner, much as some scientists who are adent supporters of Darwin are aetheists. It doesn’t mean that everyone who promotes Darwin is an aetheist. If it surprises you that I say that, it shouldn’t. I have already said Darwinism explains some things but not everything. which is what Ben Stein and the people ofn the movie were saying. So don’t steriotype all ID supporters.

Odd then, that the Pope says that the central claim of Darwinism is virtually certain.

saying the central claim of Darwinism is certain doesn’t mean a vertual acceptance of all the conclusions of Darwinism. It just means that you can show that within species changes occur.

It denies the teaching of the Church.

I think the church teaches that God is all wise and possesses all knowledge therefore it would be irrational to suppose he would not create a purposeful creation with a sense of purposeful design. ID supports that idea of an all-knowing God. I would say that an assertion that creation was random would be more anti-god.

The guys who invented it, admitted in writing that it’s purpose is to advance their idea of god.

I don’t se how id advances any particular notion of god, but it does
allow for the possibility of a God.

I am a Catholic! My sister teacfhes Theology at Notre Dame University. But, I am not a scientist and I won’t speak your particular language, so if I misspeak, or think differently it is because i come from a different field of endeavor. Catholics do not have to believe in Darwinism.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Check out this link, to those who question whether I am a Catholic:

tanbooks.com/doct/evolution_hoax.htm

God Bless, maryJohnZ