I said the opposite, that he does not deserve death threats.
mary:
I said his statements were irresponsible. he deserved grief from the press, not death threats. His ideas should be looked at and questioned. That is what I meant when I said he deserved grief.
If you can present the original speech perhaps we can ascertain the original content. Until then it reamsins a question and a concern.
Barbarian:
The government of China, alarmed by the rapidly-growing imbalance between males and females, has greatly restricted sonograms and elective abortions.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb264/is_200311/ai_hibm1
G1115902326
Mary:
I am glad they reversed their old policy, or revised it. They still limit couples to one child, which forces abortions on women.
There is a huge imbalance in the number of male and female babies because of the sex-selection abortions. .I am dropping a discussion on Pianka because you can’t show his original speech so there is no support for saying Mims lied. But geting bogged down into whether there was a lie or not will not bewnfit this discussion further.
We can see this as an example of how carefully scientists have to be about how the state their views, especially in regards to the such topics as population control, if they don’t want to appear as if they are furthering views calling for different forms of genocide and governemnt control over families which is beyond what is just and moral.
I found this book online and some thoughts from de Chardin:
"When theologians insist that knowledge of God can only come through a miraculous act of divine revelation, rather than being discovered by reason, or that sinful humanity has no hope of salvation except by fiat of an all-powerful and all-loving God, then the dialogue between science and religion is interrupted prematurely. Moreover, religion has no role to play in a world which is committed finally and forever to science. That, Teilhard argues, is the greatest theological tragedy of our modern age.
…
In order to sustain and extend the huge, invincible and legitimate effort of research in which the vital weight of human activity is at present engaged, a faith, a mysticism is necessary. Whether it is a question of preserving the sacred hunger that impels man’s efforts, or of giving him the altruism he needs for his increasingly indispensable collaboration with his fellows, religion is the soul biologically necessary for the future of science. Humanity is no longer imaginable without science. But no more is science possible without some religion to animate it.(26)
As Teilhard envisions the future, the greatest need is for a new type of seeker, or rather the rebirth of the original type once known to the world before the divorce of science from religion.
This is a seeker who devotes himself, ultimately through love, to the labours of discovery. No longer a worshipper of the world but of something greater than the world, through and beyond the world in progress. Not the proud and cold Titan (Prometheus), but Jacob passionately wrestling with God.(27)
Thus, in the final analysis, Teilhard returns to the Bible and finds in the sacred Scriptures of his own tradition a God who is most compatible with a world in continual evolution. Not the static and unchanging God of the philosophers, the unmoved mover who stands over and against creation, but rather the same God who is so intimately related to the world as to enter into its deepest tragedies and struggles. The relevant texts of Scripture suggest that both the science and the theology of the future shall require not the detached and bespectacled observer but the passionate seeker who finds within the world of matter a supremely attractive center. The future of western culture may depend on whether enough of us have the courage to move with Teilhard from research towards adoration. "
That statement came from Chapter 5 of a book called God and Science which can be read here:
godweb.org/chardin.htm
I know Teilhard de Chardin ran into a lot of difficulties with his work. Does anyone know if his work is totally condemned by the church and what the church has said about him?
I will try to find out more. I liked what I read in this passage.
I know he was also involved in a scandal involved with a human skull and an ape jaw, but the question of his role in it was always obscured. Some think it originally was meant as a practical joke and then it went too far. Any help in understanding the difficulty the church had with Teilhard de Chardin’s view of science would be helpfulto me.
In Christ,
MaryJohnz
