Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[The_Barbarian]

I was hoping for an answer that gave your understanding of how science has contributed to a sense of how authentic the Catholic view point is about the nature of the human person.

The soul, as the Pope says, is beyond the reach of science. It can only talk about our physical selves, which means that it can neither support nor deny our understanding of a complete human.

I am disappointed that this is all that you could offer.

Scientists here (and the Pope) have been trying to get people to understand this fact. If your faith is not sufficient, science can’t help.

I had already said I could understand that Darwin explains some aspects of development within a species, but beyond that he doesn’t really explain anything about how the human being who can empathize with other

Well, there is some of that, since empathy does depend on neurological processes as well as our souls. But it can’t really say why. Only how.

imagine other worlds, express beauty in arts and music, etc…none of that can really be explained perfectly by environmental influences as far as I know.

There are some hints. Beauty, for example, most often has dimensional attributes with the same fractal level as open woodlands. And the Golden section is a very old observation. But it only moves on the periphery of what you’re talking about. That core of humanity is beyond science.

Hence, if anything science seems to be very limited in what it can talk about in terms of the human being.

By George, I think she’s got it! Yes. Exactly.

Faith can talk about many more of those things.

Wonderful, Mary.

Darwin was not necessarily a man of faith however.

Not late in life, when he said he was “leaning toward agnosticism” However, in The Origin of Species," he did attribute the origin of life to God.

Materialism in science tends to try to explain even the spiritual side of a person in terms of chemestry and genetics…genes which control shyness, etc…All of that seems contrary to Catholic belief.

Turns out a lot of our behavior is chemical, or neurological. Why would it bother you if God did it that way? He made you by natural means, after all.

I tried one more time to research your claim that Darwin was a man of compassion and empathy…a man whose writings would shun the values found in eugenics. I looked up the phrase you tend to use “reformed eugenics” and found some interesting articles on the ‘search for the perfect child’. I also came across some pages from Darwin’s book, “The Descent of Man”.

here is a quote from one of the pages:

Charles Darwin:
**" to save the life of every one to the last moment Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man…

The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; ."**

I restored the part you deleted. Notice that although like most scientists of his time, he thought that although the worst in humankind were harming the population by breeding, he considered any attempt to do anything about it, to be “an overwhelming present evil.”

Of course, after the discovery of genetics and of the nature of harmful recessives, it became clear that any such attempt would be an unscientific failure, not merely an evil as Darwin said. That is why Darwinists of that time attacked classical eugenics. And it’s why Stein’s blood libel is so despicable; he is smearing the very people who destroyed any scientific rationale for the Holocaust.

I cannot possibly reconcile those beliefs with my Catholic faith.

Sorry, I think, as Darwin did, that all humans, no matter what their abilities, have the right to life and dignity. We’ll just have to disagree on that. But that is also the teaching of the Church, so I think you may want to reconsider.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbaian"
Science can’t do that. Science can only tell you about the body and how it formed.
Mary:
But those is science who rule out the soul by giving everything a natural explanation also push science beyond its proper role. Darwing says directly that his view pushes God out. That is why he did not want to talk about his view on man’s origin at first.

But here is one of the editors of the Catholic Catechism talking about the view of John Paul the II on Darwin and ID:

By CHRISTOPH SCHÖNBORN
Published: July 7, 2005
Vienna
Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

“EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was “more than just a hypothesis,” defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.”

“But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”

“Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution *in the neo-Darwinian sense *- an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature: "

“All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”

"He went on: “To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.”

"… In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, “It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity.”
Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: “Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason.” It adds: “We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.”

"In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of “evolution” as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism. "

"The commission’s document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul’s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that “the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.
…
In Christ,
MaryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbaian:
Turns out a lot of our behavior is chemical, or neurological. Why would it bother you if God did it that way? He made you by natural means, after all.
mary:
But we are much more than that and have the grace of God to overcome our own weaknesses. we are not ruled by our chemicals.
(see my last post)

Charles Darwin:
" to save the life of every one to the last moment Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man…
The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; ."

---

Do you see how Darwin talks about the human being as if they were animals, breeding, and how much he deplores the bad effects of the 'weak surviving and propagating their kind"
And since the 'conscience" is just a matter of social instinct…then just change the instinct and you have eugenics, the Nazi regime, terrorism, etc.

I read enough of his writing to know he did not mean this quote in the way you are interpreeting it below. he really saw the process of human development in a very cold, methodical, materialistic way without any concept of a moral sense of 'evil":

Barbaian:
I restored the part you deleted. Notice that although like most scientists of his time, he thought that although the worst in humankind were harming the population by breeding, he considered any attempt to do anything about it, to be “an overwhelming present evil.”
mary:
In your own words, science cannot talk about evil anyway…

Barbaian:
Of course, after the discovery of genetics and of the nature of harmful recessives, it became clear that any such attempt would be an unscientific failure, not merely an evil as Darwin said. That is why Darwinists of that time attacked classical eugenics. And it’s why Stein’s blood libel is so despicable; he is smearing the very people who destroyed any scientific rationale for the Holocaust.

Mary:
Yes, they destroyed the rationale for the techniques of the Nazis and set up their own techniques…with the same ends in mind.
Barbarian:
Sorry, I think, as Darwin did, that all humans, no matter what their abilities, have the right to life and dignity. We’ll just have to disagree on that. But that is also the teaching of the Church, so I think you may want to reconsider.
Mary:
You know I agree that each person is a gift from God. That is why I am in this argument. If we can agree on anything I would hope it would be that. I feel strongly that you are the one defending the rationale behind the present day holocaust of abortion and all the other scientific attacks on the dignity of even the smallest living person, tiny frozen embryos.

I would even go further than that and say that artificial birth control
is an attack on human sexuality, the dignity of the person of a woman and a man and the means by which new life begins.

I would say that the moment of conception is a very sacred moment that needs to be recognized as a moment of union with God as well as with another person.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Turns out a lot of our behavior is chemical, or neurological. Why would it bother you if God did it that way? He made you by natural means, after all.

But we are much more than that

Good. I’m pleased that you understand this. We can overcome our baser inclinations.

Charles Darwin:
" to save the life of every one to the last moment Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man…

The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; ."

Do you see how Darwin talks about the human being as if they were animals, breeding,

He says just the opposite; that we cannot treat human beings as animals.

And since the 'conscience" is just a matter of social instinct…

You can’t be serious. Please tell me you don’t actually believe that, Mary. Darwin, whom you disregard clearly indicates that it isn’t.

But yes, those who didn’t listen to Darwin and his followers did conclude that it was O.K. to treat people that way, and hence the Nazis and all those other things that Stein denies and instead blames on science.

I read enough of his writing to know he did not mean this quote in the way you are interpreeting it below. he really saw the process of human development in a very cold, methodical, materialistic way without any concept of a moral sense of 'evil":

C’mon, Mary; be honest with yourself, at least. Darwin writes something you don’t want him to have written, and so you just say “he didn’t mean it.” Do you know how that plays with people reading this exchange?

Barbarian:
I restored the part you deleted. Notice that although like most scientists of his time, he thought that although the worst in humankind were harming the population by breeding, he considered any attempt to do anything about it, to be “an overwhelming present evil.”

In your own words, science cannot talk about evil anyway…

Yes, but scientists can. Remember when I told you that science can’t provide values? Scientists have them, but not from science.

Barbaian:
Of course, after the discovery of genetics and of the nature of harmful recessives, it became clear that any such attempt would be an unscientific failure, not merely an evil as Darwin said. That is why Darwinists of that time attacked classical eugenics. And it’s why Stein’s blood libel is so despicable; he is smearing the very people who destroyed any scientific rationale for the Holocaust.

Mary:
Yes, they destroyed the rationale for the techniques of the Nazis and set up their own techniques…with the same ends in mind.

You know better Mary. I showed you that they refuted the entire premise of classical genetics. And to say that scientists had the same ends in mind as the Nazis, is a terrible blood libel. It is, as you know, false.

Barbarian observes:
That is why Darwinists of that time attacked classical eugenics. And it’s why Stein’s blood libel is so despicable; he is smearing the very people who destroyed any scientific rationale for the Holocaust.

I cannot possibly reconcile those beliefs with my Catholic faith

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, I think, as Darwin did, that all humans, no matter what their abilities, have the right to life and dignity. We’ll just have to disagree on that. But that is also the teaching of the Church, so I think you may want to reconsider.

You know I agree that each person is a gift from God.

Then why would you say such a thing?

I feel strongly that you are the one defending the rationale behind the present day holocaust of abortion and all the other scientific attacks on the dignity of even the smallest living person, tiny frozen embryos.

Now, you’re playing the way Stein does. And you should remember that false witness is a sin, Mary.

 

[The_Barbarian]

"Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.

This is a grevious error; there is nothing in the Modern Synthesis (which is what scientists call what the Cardinal called "Neo-Darwinism) that say God was not involved in it. Indeed Cardinal Ratzinger points out that even a purely contingent (chance) process can be used by God (citing St Thomas Aquinas)

Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."

This is another error. We can’t find any “design” in biology. Indeed, we have learned that evolutionary processes work better than “design.” Engineers have learned to mimick God’s creation in solving problems that resist design.

Turns out that God knows more than the Cardinal about creation.

Or perhaps he only means “design” in terms of intent. That would be compatible with the Church and with science.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Kenneth Miller nicely sums up the errors:

**Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, editor of the Church’s Catechism, recently wrote that any notion that neo-Darwinian theory is “somehow compatible with Christian faith” is simply “not true.”

The cardinal asserted that evolution is an “unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.” Evolution, in his view, isn’t science so much as a “materialistic philosophy” that denies the existence of a creator’s plan. It’s anti-Christian, and it’s bad science to boot.

…but in his understandable eagerness to stand up for God, he’s made three glaring mistakes: The most obvious is scientific. The second is political. And the third, dare I say as a Catholic lay person, is theological.

Knowing how the cardinal’s words will be misused by the enemies of science, I think it’s important to set the record straight.

Let’s start with what Schonborn got right. The Catholic Church has always opposed any view of life that would exclude the notion of divine purpose. As the Catechism says, scientific studies of “the age and development of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man . . . invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator.” Indeed they do.

But Schonborn’s assertion that the theory of evolution is inherently anti-God is simply wrong. Consider these words from George Gaylord Simpson, widely recognized as one of the principal architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis:

“The process [of evolution] is wholly natural in its operation. This natural process achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer; and it has produced a vast plan without the concurrent action of a planner. It may be that the initiation of the process and the physical laws under which it functions had a purpose and that this mechanistic way of achieving a plan is the instrument of a Planner – of this still deeper problem the scientist, as scientist, cannot speak.”

Exactly. Science is, just as Pope John Paul II said, silent on the issue of ultimate purpose. This means that biological evolution, correctly understood, does not address what Simpson called the “deeper problem,” leaving that issue, quite properly, to faith.

The cardinal’s second error was to enter American politics by supporting the “intelligent-design” movement. This movement seeks to short-circuit science by applying political pressure at state and local levels, and the cardinal’s misrepresentation of evolution will only further a growing entanglement between church and state. He seems not to understand that the neo-creationists of “intelligent design,” unlike Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, argue against evolution on every level, asserting that a “designer” has repeatedly intervened to subvert the laws of nature. This view stands in sharp contradiction to a 2004 International Theological Commission document approved by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict…

More important, the document makes a critical statement on how to interpret scientific studies of the complexity of life: “[W]hether the available data support inferences of design or chancecannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency” – that is, dependence upon chance – “in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence.”

Right there, in plain view, is the essence of compatibility between evolution and Catholic theology. “Contingency in the created order,” the very heart of evolution, is not at all incompatible with the will of God. The church document re-emphasizes this point by stating that “even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.” And evolution, as scientist Stephen Jay Gould emphasized, is truly a contingent natural process.

The concerns of Pope Benedict, as expressed in his earlier writings, are not with evolution per se, but with how evolution is to be understood in our modern world. Biological evolution fits neatly into a traditional Catholic understanding of how contingent natural processes can be seen as part of God’s plan, while “evolutionist” philosophies that deny the divine do not. Three popes, beginning with Pius XII, have now made this clear.

John Paul’s 1996 letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences bore the magnificent title “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth.” Writing in the tradition of Augustine and Aquinas, the late pope affirmed the church’s twin commitments to scientific rationality and to an overarching spiritual view of the ultimate meaning and purpose of life.

Like many other scientists who hold the Catholic faith, I see the Creator’s plan and purpose fulfilled in our universe. …I see a science that tells us there is indeed a design to life. And the name of that design is evolution.
**

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian observes:
Turns out a lot of our behavior is chemical, or neurological. Why would it bother you if God did it that way? He made you by natural means, after all.
Good. I’m pleased that you understand this. We can overcome our baser inclinations.

---

Mary:
And I am glad that you understand it since your former quote left doubts. And after having read Darwin, I know he did not believe anything beyond the material…He seemed to search for a material reason for everything.

---

Charles Darwin:
" to save the life of every one to the last moment Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man…
The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; ."

Barbarian:
He says just the opposite; that we cannot treat human beings as animals.
mary:
I am reading the same quote I see the opposite meaning in it.
In the context of the rest of his writings on human sexuality, I find it more believable that he does see human being as a more highly evolved animal. I see no evidence that he sees anything more in a human being. When he talks of the evolution of the human mind, reasoning, morality, compassion, sense of beauty, he is talking about it as a person who is bending ove backward to find natural causation for all those aspects of the human person. This would go against the Catholic teaching that God gave the human person a ‘soul’ and that it was an instantaneous event…not something that evolved over time, Just as the human person is ensouled from the moment of conception in an instantaneous manner, not gradually as they develop in the womb.

Barbaian:
You can’t be serious. Please tell me you don’t actually believe that, Mary. Darwin, whom you disregard clearly indicates that it isn’t.
Mary:
I made it clear that I don not believe that a conscience is a matter of social instinct but that is the way Darwin defined it in his writing. Didn’t you read what he said?

But yes, those who didn’t listen to Darwin and his followers did conclude that it was O.K. to treat people that way, and hence the Nazis and all those other things that Stein denies and instead blames on science.

C’mon, Mary; be honest with yourself, at least. Darwin writes something you don’t want him to have written, and so you just say “he didn’t mean it.” Do you know how that plays with people reading this exchange?

Barbarian:
I restored the part you deleted. Notice that although like most scientists of his time, he thought that although the worst in humankind were harming the population by breeding, he considered any attempt to do anything about it, to be “an overwhelming present evil.”
Mary
Adding the other part of the quote does not bring the quote to say any such thing…it only digs the hole deeper for Darwin. He still says it is an evil that the weak will survive and propogate…I see that as a statement that would lead to people saying “Hmmm…but if we can get rid of the weak, then that problem goes away…”

I am continuing this on a second post.
In Christ, MaryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian:
Yes, but scientists can. Remember when I told you that science can’t provide values? Scientists have them, but not from science.
Mary:
And the insertion of his values into his theories is what led to eugenics from what I can see. Darwin had become convinced that even human beings were merely a higher form of animal and that value concerning the human person corrupted his later work.
when he was just talking about plants I had no problem with him.
He went to great length to show that even human expressions were part of the human person coming out of animals.

Barbaian:
Of course, after the discovery of genetics and of the nature of harmful recessives, it became clear that any such attempt would be an unscientific failure, not merely an evil as Darwin said. That is why Darwinists of that time attacked classical eugenics. And it’s why Stein’s blood libel is so despicable; he is smearing the very people who destroyed any scientific rationale for the Holocaust.

Mary:
Yes, they destroyed the rationale for the techniques of the Nazis and set up their own techniques…with the same ends in mind.

Barbarian:
You know better Mary. I showed you that they refuted the entire premise of classical genetics. And to say that scientists had the same ends in mind as the Nazis, is a terrible blood libel. It is, as you know, false.
That is why Darwinists of that time attacked classical eugenics. And it’s why Stein’s blood libel is so despicable; he is smearing the very people who destroyed any scientific rationale for the Holocaust.
Mary:
Darwin and Puttin only said it would not work based on statistics, not that is was a bad thing to do based on the nature of the human person. That is why they did not really destroy the rugenics movmemnt.
Mary:
As long as some people had the belief that human beings were just another form of an animal there was no reason to think that they could not be controlled in some ways…that basis is definitely part of Darwin.

From the journal “Commonwealth”, the ties between Darwin’s theories and social justification for the holocaust are affirmed:
creationontheweb.com/content/view/5085
*“A very interesting article appeared lately in the decidedly liberal religious journal Commonweal, taking on this notion of the ‘gentle Darwin’.1 The anti-creationist Peter Quinn argues in that Darwin was not quite so squeaky clean when it comes to dangerous social implications of his theory.”

“Quinn argues that Darwin’s biological theory had very real ramifications for social theory. Says Quinn:”

‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start

‘Adrian Desmond and James Moore in their 1991 biography, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, make clear that natural selection was intended as more than a theory of life’s origins. “‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image,” they write. “But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start—Darwinism was invented to explain human society.”’

“Indeed, the whole ugly world of eugenics needs to be seen for what it really is: very much an outgrowth of Darwinian thought. As Quinn notes:”

‘Darwin played a prime role in bringing about a fateful confusion between cultural and racial differences, conferring new scientific authority and intellectual legitimacy on theories of human inferiority central to eugenics, the most destructive medical movement in history.’"

“Indeed, ‘by the time Darwin published the second edition of The Descent of Man in 1874, he had added Francis Galton’s eugenic theories and Herbert Spencer’s “survival of the fittest*” social philosophy to the mix, calling Hereditary Genius, Galton’s treatise on the biological nature of intelligence and moral character, “remarkable” and Spencer “our greatest philosopher”.’ Note that Galton, the Father of Eugenics, was Darwin’s first cousin, and indebted to his theories.”

---

It just seems the more you look at Darwin the ties to social Darwinism and eugenics become more and more clear.

In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[huckleberry]

I’m pleased that you accept that. I, and others here, have been trying to explain that science does not, and cannot contradict faith.

I guess that is the definition of “faith”. It could be regarded as the polar opposite of “science”.

Um, that’s not what he said, was it? However, if you now understand that evolutionary theory cannot support atheism, then you’ve made some progress. But if some atheists think it can (as some participants here think it can) it’s not a matter of morality, but of ignorance. Which is, as you know, not a moral failing, unless it is intentional.

What does it mean: “evolutionary theory cannot support atheism”? What do you mean by “support”. Evolutionary theory makes no comment on the existence or non-existence of any gods.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I’m pleased that you accept that. I, and others here, have been trying to explain that science does not, and cannot contradict faith.

I guess that is the definition of “faith”.

No. It is trust and belief in God. Learn about it here:
newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

It could be regarded as the polar opposite of “science”.

No. Science is not a lack of faith or belief in God.

Barbarian observes:
Um, that’s not what he said, was it? However, if you now understand that evolutionary theory cannot support atheism, then you’ve made some progress. But if some atheists think it can (as some participants here think it can) it’s not a matter of morality, but of ignorance. Which is, as you know, not a moral failing, unless it is intentional.

What does it mean: “evolutionary theory cannot support atheism”?

It means that there is nothing in evolutionary theory that can support atheism.

What do you mean by “support”.

1: to endure bravely or quietly : bear
2 a (1): to promote the interests or cause of (2): to uphold or defend as valid or right : advocate (3): to argue or vote for b (1): assist, help (2): to act with (a star actor) (3): to bid in bridge so as to show support for c: to provide with substantiation : corroborate
3 a: to pay the costs of : maintain b: to provide a basis for the existence or subsistence of <the island could probably support three — A. B. C. Whipple>
4 a: to hold up or serve as a foundation or prop for b: to maintain (a price) at a desired level by purchases or loans; also : to maintain the price of by purchases or loans
5: to keep from fainting, yielding, or losing courage : comfort

 

[reggieM]

C’mon, Mary; be honest with yourself, at least. Darwin writes something you don’t want him to have written, and so you just say “he didn’t mean it.” Do you know how that plays with people reading this exchange?

I’ve enjoyed reading MaryJohnZ’s responses. I follow her logic easily and I don’t think what she has said about Darwin has been refuted. To my point of view, the eugenics-Nazi connection is blatantly obvious, even without Darwin’s own statements about human beings as animals.

I see the arguments opposed to that to be convoluted and not convincing (or clear) at all.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’ve enjoyed reading MaryJohnZ’s responses. I follow her logic easily and I don’t think what she has said about Darwin has been refuted. To my point of view, the eugenics-Nazi connection is blatantly obvious, even without Darwin’s own statements about human beings as animals.

We are animals. Darwin’s point was that we aren’t merely animals, but humans, who are entitled to life and dignity:

The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; ."
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

That you find this objectionable is rather disturbing, to say the least.

I see the arguments opposed to that to be convoluted and not convincing (or clear) at all.

I think Darwin is right; all humans have an intrinsic right to life and freedom. We’ll just have to disagree about that, Reggie.

In case I’ve misunderstood, and you actually agree with Darwin that all people, no matter what their abilities, deserve life and freedom, please correct me.

 

[huckleberry]

It means that there is nothing in evolutionary theory that can support atheism.

Ok. That is just as true as saying that there is nothing in evolutionary theory that can support theism. We agree that the supernatural is not addressed by evolutionary theory.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I’ve enjoyed reading MaryJohnZ’s responses. I follow her logic easily and I don’t think what she has said about Darwin has been refuted. To my point of view, the eugenics-Nazi connection is blatantly obvious, even without Darwin’s own statements about human beings as animals.

I see the arguments opposed to that to be convoluted and not convincing (or clear) at all.

Thank Reggie,

I appologize for my terrible typing however…and grammar at times. I don’t have time always to go over it carefully and for sometimes I see it when It is posted but don’t see it when I am writing it. Probably a factor of my middle aged eyes.

Also I find it hard the way Barbarian breaks everything up into separate thoughts… The argument doesn’t flow and becomes confusing.

But I hoped something I said, which made sense in my own mind, was coming through correctly. So thanks!

I am interested to see what Pope Benedict did write about all this.
He just came out with a book on it, didn’t he?

In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian:
Yes, but scientists can. Remember when I told you that science can’t provide values? Scientists have them, but not from science.

the insertion of his values into his theories is what led to eugenics from what I can see.

As you know, Darwin said that all humans were entitled to freedom and life. He considered any attempt to cull humans from the population to be evil. Why do you find that objectionable? And how do you square that with classical eugenics, which was intended to do exactly that?

Darwin had become convinced that even human beings were merely a higher form of animal

He never wrote that. Indeed, as you learned, he thought humans were exceptional, having rights and freedom merely for being human.

and that value concerning the human person corrupted his later work.

I don’t see how you can find the idea that all humans are entitled to life and freedom, to be objectionable.

Barbarian observes:
Of course, after the discovery of genetics and of the nature of harmful recessives, it became clear that any such attempt would be an unscientific failure, not merely an evil as Darwin said. That is why Darwinists of that time attacked classical eugenics. And it’s why Stein’s blood libel is so despicable; he is smearing the very people who destroyed any scientific rationale for the Holocaust.

Yes, they destroyed the rationale for the techniques of the Nazis and set up their own techniques…with the same ends in mind.

Barbarian:
You know better Mary. I showed you that they refuted the entire premise of classical genetics. And to say that scientists had the same ends in mind as the Nazis, is a terrible blood libel. It is, as you know, false.

That is why Darwinists of that time attacked classical eugenics. And it’s why Stein’s blood libel is so despicable; he is smearing the very people who destroyed any scientific rationale for the Holocaust.

Darwin and Puttin only said it would not work based on statistics, not that is was a bad thing to do

Darwin, as you know, called it “evil.” Everyone saw that, Mary. Why deny what everyone here knows?

That is why they did not really destroy the rugenics movmemnt.

From Creationist/Socialist site:
**Your people didn’t listen to them, and so eugenics went forward. But in spite of Darwin and Darwinists, not because of them.But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, **

(Those wacky socialists; Darwin didn’t write about economics)

imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start

Darwin observed that these things were happening. However, as you learned, he denounced imperialism and racial extermination. Socialists get a lot of things wrong. And capitalism and free trade are not evil; they actually help the poor, not hurt them.

Bottom line? Darwin denounced the eugenics program. The Darwinists later showed that it wouldn’t even work. Your people supported it. This is why Stein’s blood libel against science is so dispicable.

 

[ricmat]

I just came across this article by Wesley Smith, commenting on an article by Brian Greene, PhD Physicist from Columbia:

But it struck me that his underlying message is that science should be elevated into a first principle that provides us with our personal values and our existence with its overarching meaning.

Certainly, science can be a wonderful thing. But it can try to go too far.

“God” and “religion” are not mentioned in the original NY Times article by Greene.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian:
Yes, but scientists can. Remember when I told you that science can’t provide values? Scientists have them, but not from science.
As you know, Darwin said that all humans were entitled to freedom and life. He considered any attempt to cull humans from the population to be evil. Why do you find that objectionable? And how do you square that with classical eugenics, which was intended to do exactly that?

---

I don’t find that objectionable. But we have been trying to find out where the road began that led to doing that, the same road that has led to abortion, euthansia and gentic engineering…
Please define the difference bewteen classical eugenics and reformed eugenics, The maybe we can discuss how one is different or the same as the other.

---

Barbarian:
He never wrote that. Indeed, as you learned, he thought humans were exceptional, having rights and freedom merely for being human.
Mary:
But his writing include judgements against certain groups, bits of racism, and the fact that some had weaknesses that would be a burden on the rest of people in a society. I do not see the concept of ‘all are created equal’ in his writings at all.
Barbarian:
I don’t see how you can find the idea that all humans are entitled to life and freedom, to be objectionable.

Mary:
When did I ever say anything like that? Of course I believe all members of the human race, every person, is a precious gift from God. And I believe in the protection of the very process by which they come into the world, that it should not be made a matter of technology.

Barbarian observes:
Of course, after the discovery of genetics and of the nature of harmful recessives, it became clear that any such attempt would be an unscientific failure, not merely an evil as Darwin said. That is why Darwinists of that time attacked classical eugenics. And it’s why Stein’s blood libel is so despicable; he is smearing the very people who destroyed any scientific rationale for the Holocaust.

Barbarian:
You know better Mary. I showed you that they refuted the entire premise of classical genetics. And to say that scientists had the same ends in mind as the Nazis, is a terrible blood libel. It is, as you know, false.

Mary:
At one point you agreed that the Darwinists merely showed that the eugenics approach of the Nazis would be a failure…but you never showed the proof that they saw eugenics as an evil. darwon would probably be "pro-choice: if he were around today, simply because the pro-choice argument is based on individual choice rather than co-ercion, and he would probably se it as a kind and compassionate way to relieve poor people of the burden of a child. Abortion tends to done that cloak of compassion.

That is why Darwinists of that time attacked classical eugenics. And it’s why Stein’s blood libel is so despicable; he is smearing the very people who destroyed any scientific rationale for the Holocaust.Darwin, as you know, called it “evil.” Everyone saw that, Mary. Why deny what everyone here knows?

Mary:
But Darwin merely saw the lack of ability of society to kill the weak as a side-effect of the social instinct. By manipulating the social instinct you remove the qualms of people. This is exactly what Margret Sanger and Planned Parenthood have done by producing propaganda that convinces mothers to kill their own children. That is truly destroying one of the basic instincts that should be natural to mothers. We see Darwin’s view in different ways. You haven’t convinced me of yours either.

From Creationist/Socialist site:
**Your people didn’t listen to them, and so eugenics went forward. But in spite of Darwin and Darwinists, not because of them.But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, **

(Those wacky socialists; Darwin didn’t write about economics)

Darwin observed that these things were happening. However, as you learned, he denounced imperialism and racial extermination. Socialists get a lot of things wrong. And capitalism and free trade are not evil; they actually help the poor, not hurt them.

Bottom line? Darwin denounced the eugenics program. The Darwinists later showed that it wouldn’t even work. Your people supported it. This is why Stein’s blood libel against science is so dispicable.

Mary:
Not any more terrible than the fact that if all those things have been disproved…if science really regards each human life as valuable and that each person should be given the right to live, as you say, then it is science that has failed to stand up and make its voice heard in the defense of the unborn, the elderly, the terminally ill. That is blood libel.

In Christ, maryJohnz

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian:
Remember when I told you that science can’t provide values? Scientists have them, but not from science.
As you know, Darwin said that all humans were entitled to freedom and life. He considered any attempt to cull humans from the population to be evil. Why do you find that objectionable?

I don’t find that objectionable.

So you are a Darwinian as far as the value of human life is concerned. That’s a good thing. You should consider the value of human life to be an absolute.

But we have been trying to find out where the road began that led to doing that, the same road that has led to abortion, euthansia and gentic engineering…

Martin Luther, in “The Jews and Their Lies.” He advocates most of the Nazi program.

Please define the difference bewteen classical eugenics and reformed eugenics,

Basically modern eugenics (what you are calling “reform eugenics”) is genetic counseling and research into ways to limit inherited genetic disorders.

Barbarian, concerning Darwin’s disagreement with eugenics:
He never wrote that. Indeed, as you learned, he thought humans were exceptional, having rights and freedom merely for being human.

But his writing include judgements against certain groups

Fact is, all sorts of groups have harmful recessives than can cause disabilty, retardation, even death. That’s not a “judgement.” It’s a fact. One Darwin could see, even before genetics. The difference is, he still though that people like that had a right to life and freedom.

bits of racism,

Darwin, like almost everyone of European descent at the time, thought Europeans were superior. Darwinians later showed that there are no such things as biological human races. But your people, as late as the 1990s, were talking about the spiritual and intellectual inferiority of blacks.

and the fact that some had weaknesses that would be a burden on the rest of people in a society.

Yes, people with severe disabilities and/or mental retardation are a burden. One that Darwin said we must be willing to accept, for the alternative was evil. Sorry you don’t agree.

I do not see the concept of ‘all are created equal’ in his writings at all.

If not, it’s become willful refusal to accept what he said. But you already told me that you didn’t think he meant what he wrote. And that kind of obstinate refusal can only be what it is.

Barbarian observes:
I don’t see how you can find the idea that all humans are entitled to life and freedom, to be objectionable.

When did I ever say anything like that?

You objected to Darwin’s statement:

if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; ."
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

If I’m wrong, and you accept that Darwin is right about it, my apologies.

Barbarian observes:
And it’s why Stein’s blood libel is so despicable; he is smearing the very people who destroyed any scientific rationale for the Holocaust.

but you never showed the proof that they saw eugenics as an evil.

I showed you that it ws that way from the beginning. Darwin himself said it was evil. Why pretend otherwise?

(assertion that Darwin would be pro-choice)

You deny he meant what he said, and assert that he meant things he never said. Do you know what this looks like to others?

Barbarian observes:
And it’s why Stein’s blood libel is so despicable; he is smearing the very people who destroyed any scientific rationale for the Holocaust.Darwin, as you know, called it “evil.”

But Darwin merely saw the lack of ability of society to kill the weak as a side-effect of the social instinct.

C’mon, Mary. Everyone here read what he said. Why pretend otherwise?

From Creationist/Socialist site:

But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade,…

(Those wacky socialists; Darwin didn’t write about economics)

Darwin observed that these things were happening. However, as you learned, he denounced imperialism and racial extermination. Socialists get a lot of things wrong. And capitalism and free trade are not evil; they actually help the poor, not hurt them.

Bottom line? Darwin denounced the eugenics program. The Darwinists later showed that it wouldn’t even work. Your people supported it. This is why Stein’s blood libel against science is so dispicable.

if science really regards each human life as valuable

Science can’t. But scientists can and do. And did. Stein is simply making excuses for the Nazis.

 

[reggieM]

The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; ."
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

That you find this objectionable is rather disturbing, to say the least…

In case I’ve misunderstood … please correct me.

No, you understood it well that I disagree with Darwin that we should “intentionally neglect the weak” for a contingent benefit. Additionally, I do not agree that having “the weak surviving and propagating their kind” is an “undoubtedly bad effect” that “we must bear”.

He portrays “the weak” as a burden to society and the fact that they “propagate their kind” he calls an “undoubtedly bad effect”.

Darwin believes he can judge who is “weak” and who is “strong” – and thus who we “must bear” to deal with having them propagate.

What is disturbing to me is that you support this kind of language – you defend it passionately and find nothing wrong with it.

But this does seem consistent with the view that human beings are “animals” as you’ve professed. (Another view I disagree with Darwinists on).

 

[The_Barbarian]

Darwin writes:
The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; ."
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Barbarian observes:
That you find this objectionable is rather disturbing, to say the least…

In case I’ve misunderstood and you actually agree with Darwin that all people, no matter what their abilities, deserve life and freedom, please correct me.

No, you understood it well that I disagree with Darwin

I don’t see how you could feel that way. Every human life is sacred.

I do not agree that having “the weak surviving and propagating their kind” is an “undoubtedly bad effect” that “we must bear”.

For example, those with the recessive gene for Duschene muscular dystrophy will often produce offspring who will suffer an awful disease that will kill them in their early teens, require extensive care, and will never be able to care for themselves. Darwin says that to let them die would be evil. You tell me that you disagree.

I agree with Darwin that we should not let them die, but should take up the burden of caring for them. I don’t see how you could not think so.

What is disturbing to me is that you support this kind of language – you defend it passionately and find nothing wrong with it.

I agree with Darwin that it would be evil not to care for such people. I believe every human life has sacred worth, and every person is entitled to life and freedom. How could you say that they don’t?

But this does seem consistent with the view that human beings are “animals” as you’ve professed.

God chose to make us that way. I accept that He did it right.

(Another view I disagree with Darwinists on).

You also disagree with the Pope, and the teaching of the Church.