Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[The_Barbarian]

I feel that Darwin did attack the reality of a soul in his work.

Since he acknowledged it in his work, that would be impossible.

Although he never renounced his faith, he did admit to feelings of agnosticism late in life. But he never said anything that would suggest that he thought humans were mere animals. Indeed, everything he wrote on the subject seems to indicate otherwise.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Since he acknowledged it in his work, that would be impossible.

Although he never renounced his faith, he did admit to feelings of agnosticism late in life. But he never said anything that would suggest that he thought humans were mere animals. Indeed, everything he wrote on the subject seems to indicate otherwise.

How can you say that? !
Darwin did the exact opposit.
His “M” Notebooks showed his materialistic stance on this.
His definition of a person was that they were animals, of the same category in all things…conscience was a matter of materialistic processes…he continually compared human traits, emotions, ability to care for others as the same actions exhibited in animals only to a higher degree. He merely said science could not talk of a soul…never said he believed in a soul in a positive statement as in “Human beings have souls that are unique” no…never admitted he believed any such thing. Go back and read Chapter 6 “Descent of Man”.

Huxley, darwin’s ‘bulldog’ and the person who coined the term ‘agnistic’ gave a talk supporting darwin’s materialistic approach to the human mind and thought process:

"The talk was titled On the Hypothesis That Animals are Automata, and Its History. In it, Huxley reminded his audience of Descartes’ view of animals as living machines and then put forward a number of propositions “which constitute the foundation and essence of the modern physiology of the nervous system.” They established the brain as the organ of sensation, thought, and emotion, and the movements of animals as due to the contraction of muscles that are caused by the motion of matter in motor nerves, through mediating sensory nerves. Huxley, the traditional materialist, was describing what occurs in the nervous system in the traditional terms of matter in motion but he was not claiming to know what the process is that produces consciousness.

Huxley’s conclusion was that animals were not automata in the Cartesian sense — that is, they were not unfeeling, unconscious machines. But, he argued, they were automata in the sense that whatever consciousness they had was a product of the functioning of the material brain and, hence, their behaviour was strictly determined by the laws of nature. In concluding that animal consciousness has a material basis and that animal behaviour is strictly determined, he noted, “I feel happy in running no risk of either Papal or Presbyterian condemnation for the views which I have ventured to put forward.” But he then went on to detonate Darwin’s bombshell. Since animals and human beings exist on the same psychological continuum, he argued, different in degree but not in kind, with the human mind the result of the completely natural processes of evolution then, he wrote, “to the best of my judgment, the argumentation which applies to brutes holds equally good of men.” That is, human beings must be automata in the sense that animals are. As Huxley put it, mental events are like “the steam-whistle which accompanies the work of a locomotive engine … without influence upon its machinery.”

humanistperspectives.org/issue154/darwinian_mind.html

In fact Darwin was unhappy with the fact that Wallace, the scientist who is considered the other man who co-discovered or wrote about evolution and natural selection as the key to change in species, did not agree with this materialistic view of the human mind. he was more prone to saying the human mind could not be explained as merely a more highly evolved animal mind. See the above article for that.

Huxley and Darwin put forth a view of the human person that was materialistic in other words and the agnosticism of that view allowed for explaining all of the human person, and took away the unique dignoity of the human soul.

Remember the Pope in Humani Generis said this about a materialistic approach to Creation of man:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

"5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribed to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

1. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

Pius X

According to Pius X the modern age was the culmination of all past heresies. This web page explains what the form of this new ‘beast’ which included all these false ideas entailed. I found the paragraph on faith and science interesting:

“n science and history, the modernist sees these areas as completely separate from faith, both in the sense of different subject matters and also in terms of the criteria used to judge what is true in them. Whenever there is an apparent overlap, the modernist turns first to observable phenomena-- this combined with his philosophical agnosticism, produces the effect that science is always superior to religion. As St. Pius said, Faith is always subject to science, according to the modernist.”

stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2007/09/centennial-of-st-pius-xs-prophetic.html

Darwin’s writings, like the philosopher Kant whom he references
laid the groundwork for this approach to science and faith.

Your assertion that darwin said man had a soul simply isn’t true.
he said science cannot talk about spiritual things…not that he believed in them or that they existed.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Although he never renounced his faith, he did admit to feelings of agnosticism late in life. But he never said anything that would suggest that he thought humans were mere animals. Indeed, everything he wrote on the subject seems to indicate otherwise.

How can you say that? !

I rely on what he wrote instead of the things people who hate him write about him.

Darwin did the exact opposit.

He asserted a human right to life and liberty, which he did not ascribe to other living things. He alludes to a spiritual side of man that science cannot describe.

Obviously, he didn’t do the opposite, Mary. Pay less attention to the people who hate him, and more to what he wrote himself.

(Argument that Huxley thought humans and animals were alike, and since Darwin and Huxley agreed on other things, Darwin must agree with Huxley on that, too)

Nice try.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

He asserted a human right to life and liberty, which he did not ascribe to other living things. He alludes to a spiritual side of man that science cannot describe.

Did Darwin? Not very strongly…too bad he kept inserting animal husbandry which involved selection for breeding right next to passages about different racial groups and society evolving. He clearly gacve the strong suggestion, if not outright argument for, eugenic policies.Go back and read Descent of Man, that is what I read in it.

Obviously, he didn’t do the opposite, Mary. Pay less attention to the people who hate him, and more to what he wrote himself.

(Argument that Huxley thought humans and animals were alike, and since Darwin and Huxley agreed on other things, Darwin must agree with Huxley on that, too)

Nice try.

Huxley and Darwin were agreeing. Darwin specifically said humans and animals were in same classification…differing only in degree, not kind.

Others see the same meaning in Darwin’s work.

"While Stein has explicitly asserted that not every neo-Darwinist is a eugenicist, an examination of the historic record reveals that neo-Darwinism can and has provided the philosophic justification for numerous horrific eugenic projects.

According to Darwin, the survival of the fittest is the engine for progress for men as well as the rest of the animal kingdom. In his “Descent of Man,” Darwin laments that the misguided care of the weaker members of society has come as a detriment to the whole. He warns that measures must be taken to “prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men,” which is essentially nothing less than the mission statement of eugenicists the world over.

Less than a century after Darwin’s death, in his chapter on “Nation and Race” in “Mein Kampf,” Adolf Hitler described the struggle for existence in Darwinian terms: “The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher evolution of organic living beings would be unthinkable.”

The Nazi party framed its mission in terms of a Darwinian struggle to achieve a more evolved life form. According to the Hitler-approved pamphlet “Why are We Fighting?”, “Our racial idea is only the ‘expression of a worldview’ that recognizes in the higher evolution of humans a divine command.”

Another Hitler-approved booklet, “Racial Policy”, outlined the Nazi vision of man as follows: “The preservation and propagation, the evolution and elevating of life occurs through the struggle for existence, to which every plant, every animal, every species and every genus is subjected. Even humans and the human races are subject to this struggle; it decides their value and their right to exist.”

---

That sure sounds like it is inspired from Descent of Man…

In fact the way Darwin placed human beings right in the same category as any animal has made its way into court where lawyers are trying to have legal personhood bestowed on animals:

".Matthew Hiasl Pan has three names like a human person, but is only a chimpanzee, according to the Austrian Supreme Court. The AP tells us

It’s official: In Austria, a chimp is not a person
Animal rights group had sought personhood for soon-to-be-homeless chimp.

Sanity has prevailed in the face of a ridiculous legal strategy by activists, however admirably aiming to aid the animal. The activists have yet to come to grips with the reality that chimps are not just hairy humans without pants, and have appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)."
realphysics.blogspot.com/2008/01/chimp-is-not-person.html

That is the legacy of Darwinian logic…certainly not that a person has a soul, differing from animal souls, but that human beings are highly evolved animals and nothing more. So according to that logic, a chimp shoul;d be given some kind of legal personhood.?
realphysics.blogspot.com/2008/01/chimp-is-not-person.html

I don’t get where you say Darwin says the human person has a unique soul bestowed by God with a Divine image. Show me the quote that you get that from.

In Christ, maryJohnz

 

[The_Barbarian]

Darwin’s acknowledgement of humans having “spiritual powers” not accessible to science clearly shows that he thought humans were more than just animals.

And that’s enough to make the point. His rejection of the eugenic ideas of your people is sufficient to give lie to Ben Stein’s libelous accusations against scientists, and Stein’s excuses for the Nazis.

As you know, ninety percent of the Nazi program came from Martin Luther; none of it from Darwin, who denounced such thinking.

Hitler did prohibit abortions, Mary, but only because he wanted more German children. He also encouraged and in some cases forced abortions on “inferior” people. He is unworthy of anyone’s support; he was not in any sense pro-life.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Darwin’s acknowledgement of humans having “spiritual powers” not accessible to science clearly shows that he thought humans were more than just
animals.

“Spiritual Powers”? Before you said Darwin said man had a soul. You have not produced a quote to support that from Darwin.
And what does Darwin mean by “spiritual powers”-- Does that automatically mean man is spiritual being the same way a Catholic thinks of the ‘spiritual’ aspect of man. Secula progressive atheists will talk of the ‘human spirit’ and psychic powers, without it having anything to do with man being created as a 'Temple" for God’s Holy Spirit. If he did see man having “spiritual powers” what were they? it couldn’t be thought and conscience which he defined in materialistic terms.

And that’s enough to make the point. His rejection of the eugenic ideas of your people is sufficient to give lie to Ben Stein’s libelous accusations against scientists, and Stein’s excuses for the Nazis.

I don’t think it is enough given the fact that Darwin said thought and morals could be found in their rudimentary form in animals and man was only an animal furth along in development…kind of alters how you look at ‘spiritual powers’.

Besides Darwin’s ability to remove God from the processes of evolution, creating a concept of creation which was a matter of
different environmental factors causing change and adaption, thus bringing about evolving species. When that materialistic view is emphasized the result is an absence of God rather than a sense that he is involved in Creation.

"Darwin’s theory unique. Nor was it the concept of universal common ancestry or the modest claim that natural selection explains some things. Darwin’s theory was revolutionary because it banished the concept of intelligent design from biology, consigning it to a marginal theological ghetto. For the first time, there seemed to be a plausible materialistic explanation for all those ingenious biological mechanisms – the brain and the eye, digestion and circulation, feathers and fins.
speakout.com/activism/opinions/3116-1.html

This gives the process of creation the appearance of chance…and also offers the possibility of guidance by man when the process is understood.

That is the possibility that Galton and others in the eugenics movement connected to.

---

“Others extended Darwin’s ban on intelligent design to include the origin of life and the universe itself. With help from intellectuals such as Marx and Freud, we were left with a view of humans as mere animals or machines who inhabit a universe ruled by chance, and whose behavior and thoughts are determined by the immutable and impersonal forces of nature and environment.”
speakout.com/activism/opinions/3116-1.html
barbarian:
Hitler did prohibit abortions, Mary, but only because he wanted more German children. He also encouraged and in some cases forced abortions on “inferior” people. He is unworthy of anyone’s support; he was not in any sense pro-life.

mary:
Yes…I agree Hitler is unworthy of anyone’s support. he doesn’t have mine or yours, but he felt that eugenics gave him a foundation to support his approach and a rationale for racial purity. That is what Ben Stein was referring to.

 

[KenEOTE]

I am going to GIve Mr. Stein the benefit of the doubt and say I think he was meaning that Sicience that excludes God can lead to evil.

From his perspective I can understand. Many atrocities were done to the Jewish people under the guise of Science not only in Germany but Russia as well.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Yes…I agree Hitler is unworthy of anyone’s support. he doesn’t have mine or yours,

So why are you supporting Stein, who is making excuses for him?

but he felt that eugenics gave him a foundation to support his approach and a rationale for racial purity.

As you know, Darwin denounced that kind of thinking, and the Darwinists showed that classical eugenics was not even scientifically valid.

That is what Ben Stein was referring to.

No, Stein pretended that Darwinists were behind it, when they were the people who had denounced it. That’s not bad enough; he also said that scientists were the people putting people into the gas chambers.

His blood libel against science is inexcusable. All the more so, because he said this:

Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Luther, who loved God, and praised compassion and empathy, was the author of 90 percent of Hitler’s final solution, something the Nazis freely admitted. And scientists, who showed that Hitler’s eugenic ideas were garbage are the ones Stein blames.

**The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.**

Anti-Defamation League

Well said.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

So why are you supporting Stein, who is making excuses for him?

Are you supporting eugenics? Come on, you keep saying religious people are the cause for all evil and can’t even admit that science without religious faith can lead to evil…
religions that are based on false ideas can lead to evil, just as perverse science can.
The examples are numerous…

As you know, Darwin denounced that kind of thinking, and the Darwinists showed that classical eugenics was not even scientifically valid.

No I don’t know that and I dont think ben Stein would agree with your statement.

No, Stein pretended that Darwinists were behind it, when they were the people who had denounced it. That’s not bad enough; he also said that scientists were the people putting people into the gas chambers.

And in the case of Auscwitz a Doctor was separating out the people who went into the gas chambers…a doctor who never was tried at Nuerenberg and who was considered a scientist.

His blood libel against science is inexcusable. All the more so, because he said this:

Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

So he is correct in that science without God, compassion and empathy do lead to evil. Religion without empathy and compassion can do the same thing. But don’t give science a free pass on this. Modern eugenics still brings about death. PP started out as part of the eugenics movement. Social Darwinism still is operative in many areas of society and our culture. I gave the example of the lawyer who wrote to Clinto of the need to permit sale of RU 486 to facilitate the killing off of poor people…a horrendous thought but he felt he was acting to further our society. The same type of philosophy in nationalistic Nazi Germany.Killing off elderly and terminally ill people because they are burdens on society…same values…

Luther, who loved God, and praised compassion and empathy, was the author of 90 percent of Hitler’s final solution, something the Nazis freely admitted. And scientists, who showed that Hitler’s eugenic ideas were garbage are the ones Stein blames.

The argument you purt forth the Luther is the basis for the Nationalism in Nazi germany has been undermined many times in this forum by passages from nazi documents and speeches by Nazi Doctors, songs from Hitler youth etc. showing that the Nazi’s were antiu Christian. Any use of martin Luther was for propaganda, not for the end goal of the Nazi racial policies. Stop repeating this nonsense!~

**The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

All Ben Stein was asking for was that other view points be heard and other questions allowed. Pope Benedict has essentially asked the same thing…that there should be room for more than one view of evolution. That ID questions should be allowed… **

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.

Anti-Defamation League

Well said.

The more I see of how Darwin has been put on this great pedastile,the more I see him as being treated as a secular god…with a status he does not deserve given the racist content of the writings in Descent of Man.

I think Darwin’s writings nned to be put into proper perspective as being only one of many people whgo wrote about evolution and his way of presenting evolution being very cold, callous and leading to a view of the human person which is materialistic and
lacks the dignity needed to bring about a truly compassionate and kind view of each single person…

Weneed to place science back in its proper order, under theology… when scientists who are men of faith begin to speak and act as that and defend helpless life than science can be put back in a place of honor.

In Chrsit, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

What we need is a scientist who is brave enough to correct the error darwin made when he said the human being is just another animal, not different in kind at all but only in degree.

This view point has been widely accepted by scientists leading to a terrible degradation of the human being…

But is a human being just another animal, only differing in degree, as Darwin clearly formulated in his Descent of man.

I found this website that lays down some excellent reasons for saying man is not juts an advanced ape:

" Traditional philosophy holds that man possesses intellective powers that make him essentially superior to lower primates. On the other hand, most evolutionists maintain that man is merely a highly-developed animal, differing in complexity from lower animals, but not in kind. Naturalistic animal psychologists expect subhuman primates to approach human beings’ mental powers – witness the recent interest in ape-language research, with its claims that gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, and other subhuman primates can be taught various forms of sign language. These animals are claimed to understand the meanings of hundreds of words, to form sentences, and to communicate with humans and among themselves. Many people infer from these claims that man himself is no longer preeminent in the animal kingdom, that mankind is just another animal species, and that the belief that God made man in His own image and gave him dominion over lower creatures is merely an archaic religious fairy tale.

 But still, philosophical analysis reveals (1) that genuine language requires intellective knowledge, and (2) that subhuman primates will never have true linguistic ability. The crucial distinction between sense and intellect eludes materialists who try to explain animal and human behavior. While man has both sense and intellective knowledge, animals possess only sensation. Intellective knowledge is specific to the human spiritual soul. Man employs his intellect to (1) form abstract concepts, (2) make judgments, and (3) reason in logical fashion from premises to conclusions. Lower animals’ sense powers, including imagination and sense memory, permit them to (1) manipulate sense data, and (2) instinctively exercise innate natural signs in order to communicate. These sense powers even enable animals to learn from man the use of arbitrary signs invented by man. And yet, brute animals do not understand the meanings of the signs that they use. Nor do they form judgments. Nor do they engage in reasoning. All ape behavior, including the trained use of signs, is focused on immediate sensible rewards, such as sex, toys, food, or contact with other animals. Abstract purposes, such as studying philosophy or earning a pay increase or dedicating one’s life to God, are meaningless to apes and elicit no signing activity...."

answersincreation.org/genesis_evolution.htm

…

What ape has written poetry? What ape has created art for art’s sake? And yet we find art and abstract ideas of who God is evidenced in prehistoric figurines and cave paintings that may have been part of prehistoric worship areas…who knows/ for sure?
But there is a clear difference between man and animals in how they can perceive and imagine things that are beyond reality…abstract ideas, create thing swhich have no practical purpose other than to bring beauty to a space…or dwelling…
Darwin did a great diservice to all human beings when he said all of us are only apes at an evolved stage… And it doesn’t make sense at all.

---

But that kind of thinking, totally materialistic is what denigrates the human person, mind, body and soul. And that is why science which is unable to admit to something beyond this world can lead to death.

it certainlyt has led to anti-religious sentiments and actions as those of Dawkins and Myers.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
So why are you supporting Stein, who is making excuses for him?

Are you supporting eugenics?

I’m the Darwinist, remember? I’m opposed to classical eugenics for moral and scientific reasons.

Come on, you keep saying religious people are the cause for all evil

I did? (Barbarian checks) Nope. I didn’t. You just made that up because…?

and can’t even admit that science without religious faith can lead to evil…

Mary, I told you that anything can lead to evil for those not committed to God.

Barbarian reminds Mary:
As you know, Darwin denounced that kind of thinking, and the Darwinists showed that classical eugenics was not even scientifically valid.

No I don’t know that

Yes you do. I showed you those things numerous times.

and I dont think ben Stein would agree with your statement.

Remember Stein claimed that scientists were pushing his relatives into the gas chamber. The reason he’s in this mess is that he lies about people he hates.

Barbarian observes:
No, Stein pretended that Darwinists were behind it, when they were the people who had denounced it. That’s not bad enough; he also said that scientists were the people putting people into the gas chambers.

And in the case of Auscwitz a Doctor was separating out the people who went into the gas chambers…

Nice try. No scientists, um?

Barbarian observes:
His blood libel against science is inexcusable. All the more so, because he said this:

Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

So he is correct in that science without God, compassion and empathy do lead to evil.

Too late to help him out by changing what he said. It’s on record.

Barbarian observes:
Luther, who loved God, and praised compassion and empathy, was the author of 90 percent of Hitler’s final solution, something the Nazis freely admitted. And scientists, who showed that Hitler’s eugenic ideas were garbage are the ones Stein blames.

The argument you purt forth the Luther is the basis for the Nationalism in Nazi germany has been undermined many times in this forum

All you have to do is go to Luther’s “The Jews and Their Lies.” It’s all there. And the Nazis openly credited Luther for his advice. Would you like me to show you again?

Anti-Defamation League’s statement on Steins Holocaust denial:
The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.
Anti-Defamation League

All Ben Stein was asking for was that other view points be heard and other questions allowed.

Rubbish. He banned any theistic evolutionist from his film. “No intelligence allowed”, indeed. Stein’s entire film was based on preventing that viewpoint from being heard.

The more I see of how Darwin has been put on this great pedastile,

That’s pointless exaggeration. Darwin’s errors are well-documented in the literature, and his theory has been amended numerous times.

I think Darwin’s writings nned to be put into proper perspective as being only one of many people whgo wrote about evolution and his way of presenting evolution being very cold, callous

That seems entirely inconsistent with Darwin’s insistence on man’s right to life and liberty, and his opinion that it is evil to even let the weakest of humans die.

Weneed to place science back in its proper order, under theology…

Sorry, that’s not going to happen. Science became effective and oriented toward the truth precisely when it stopped looking for evil spirits and started seeking natural explanations.

when scientists who are men of faith begin to speak and act as that and defend helpless life

As Darwin did in his writings? They still do. You seem to know very little about men of faith in science. The truth matters. It matters in science, and it matters to God.

And Mary, it should matter to you.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

1. You never produced a quote from Darwin that he believed in human beings having a soul making them different from animals.
   (previous post)
2. You never substantiated that the Doctor at Auschwitz was not a doctor/scientist…that is in your opinion, but in other opinions he was viewed as a scientist and doctor

"The influence of the American eugenics movement, according to Black, extended far beyond the United States’ shores. Black argues that the United States became the center of worldwide eugenics activities and, ultimately, contributed to the Nazi Holocaust in Germany during World War II. The First International Congress of Eugenics, held in London in 1912, was dominated by ideas developed in the United States. German scientists and physicians promoting eugenics maintained close associations with the ERA, the ERO, and Laughlin. American eugenics journals published and praised the work of the Germans, even when this work had heavy anti-Semitic overtones. Even more serious, American organizations such as the Rockefeller Foundation provided funding to German race biology, both before and after Adolf Hitler rose to power.

One of those who received Rockefeller money was Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a medical researcher interested in identifying hereditary traits through studies of twins. Verschuer maintained personal and professional ties with American eugenicists even after World War II, although these ties were strained by the accusations of involvement in war crimes that had been made against him. The notorious Josef Mengele, who conducted his own barbaric twin studies at the death camp at Auschwitz, was Verschuer’s good friend and assistant. Black gives disturbing descriptions of Mengele’s activities at Auschwitz, although he does not suggest that there was any American involvement in these activities."
salempress.com/store/samples/holocaust_lit/holocaust_lit_war.htm
3. Your insistence that the Nazi Holocaust came from martin Luther is pure delusion, although I am sure the Nazi’s benefited frm the writings of Luther to push their own agenda, which was racial purity.

1. Prove that Ben Stein banned Theistic Evolution from being part of his film.
2. Simply because science cannot explain a human soul doesn’t mean they can’t use reason to prove that it exists and that there are sufficient reasons/facts to show that human beings are in a different classification from animals.darwin did not do that and it caused harm and is still causing harm.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

1. You never produced a quote from Darwin that he believed in human beings having a soul making them different from animals.
   (previous post)

In fact, you did. Darwin wrote that human, with “spiritual powers” were different from animals in a way that scientists could not test.

You never substantiated that the Doctor at Auschwitz was not a doctor/scientist…that is in your opinion, but in other opinions he was viewed as a scientist and doctor

He had an MD degree. Doctor. Not a scientist.

"The influence of the American eugenics movement, according to Black, extended far beyond the United States’ shores. Black argues that the United States became the center of worldwide eugenics activities and, ultimately, contributed to the Nazi Holocaust in Germany during World War II. The First International Congress of Eugenics, held in London in 1912, was dominated by ideas developed in the United States. German scientists and physicians promoting eugenics maintained close associations with the ERA, the ERO, and Laughlin. American eugenics journals published and praised the work of the Germans, even when this work had heavy anti-Semitic overtones. Even more serious, American organizations such as the Rockefeller Foundation provided funding to German race biology, both before and after Adolf Hitler rose to power.

Too bad they didn’t listen to the Darwinists who showed the whole basis for that was scientifically indefensible, or to Darwin, who said that it was “overwhelming evil.”

1. Your insistence that the Nazi Holocaust came from martin Luther is pure delusion,

Anyone who reads Luther’s “The Jews and Their Lies” will see he advocated revocation of their rights, destruction of their churches and synagogues, confiscation of their wealth and property, forced labor, and deportation. The Nazis freely credited him with this.

Prove that Ben Stein banned Theistic Evolution from being part of his film.

Not one Christian or other believer in God who also accepts evolution was permitted in his film. Not one. Why do you think he said “No intelligence allowed?”

Simply because science cannot explain a human soul doesn’t mean they can’t use reason to prove that it exists and that there are sufficient reasons/facts to show that human beings are in a different classification from animals.

That’s what Darwin said.

Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist: but he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree.

Spiritual powers seems to be a big difference, although science can’t use it as a means of classification. This is not a problem for a Catholic:

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
Pope Pius XII

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Too bad they didn’t listen to the Darwinists who showed the whole basis for that was scientifically indefensible, or to Darwin, who said that it was “overwhelming evil.”

but he also said unless there is justification by another greater good…allowing for the interpretation that you could justify social darwuinian programs if the benefit outweighed the loss. We wnet over that quote a number of time and it can be read in that way, especially considering all his side by side compariosons or mentions of animal breeding. Why mention animal breeding in a discussionon human development unless you are implying it is pertinent!

"Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist: but he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree.

That is the part of Darwin that has robbed every living person of the dignity of being created in the image of God to be a temple of the Holy Spirit! That is the part of Darwing that has led to so many problems! i don’t care about evolution being used by God to creat a body for the human species, but declaring that humans are not different from animals IN KIND, was wrong on his part.

What dog builds a temple? What chicken paints a picture? What song bird writes their own melody with variations? What lion is able to reflect on whether or not he is cruel in his hunting? What fish writes a novel?

it is not just that man does so many more complex, abstract and interpretive ways of thinking and acting…but that man did this at such an early stage of development.

Take the Woman of Wilendorf, a small 3" carved stone figurine of a woman…yet clearly evoking the snsuos and sexual nature of a woman, her firtle nature, and even involving what seems to be symbolism in number use with the 7 rows of notted shapes representing hair that circle the head and end in a twirling rosette shape… on the head…is it about ‘woman’ or is it about ‘creation’…a mystery, yet revealing the complexity of human nature to be different from animals.

God the Creator made man in his image with the ability to be 'creative"…

I previously posted an argument showing that human language is not just highly evolved animal sounds and signs and that simply because animals can learn to respond to sounds or signs is not the same as human use of language and symbols…

As long as we have a scientific community which is bent of explaining man by degrading him rather than elevating him as the word “evolution” would imply…you will have open the possibility for establishing views that would treat some people as disposable
and justify it as being for their good and the good of society.

it is still happening!

I am glad you posted Pope Pius’s statment:

“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”
Pope Pius XII

And remember John Paul IIs insistence that the Catholic view is that man is the ‘crown’ of creation.

But science has consistently worked to downgrade the human person rather than to show that there is an inherent dignity and worth:

"In the following decades, the downgrading of the human species continued ruthlessly. Behaviorism replaced the very notion of the “psyche” by a set of conditioned reflexes that didn’t differ significantly from the ones that condition the behavior of a rat or, ultimately, of an ameba. Structuralism and Deconstructionism abolished the Marxist notion of a meaning of History as a residue of humanist illusions. Genetics, neurophysiology, computer-science models of the brain, and pharmacological psychiatry reduced to nil the aspirations of Freudian psychology itself. Ecology portrayed the human being as a bad-behaved and destructive animal harmful to nature. Finally, philosopher Peter Singer promoted chicken and pigs to holders of human rights, in the same footing as a sublime creature as Peter Singer himself.

Thus came down, one after the other, the “narcissistic illusions” – as Freud used to call them – of an animal species that dared to proclaim itself an image and likeness of God. The history of scientific ideas, seen from this aspect, is a history of intellectual humility. …"

olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/080204dc_en.html

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Too bad they didn’t listen to the Darwinists who showed the whole basis for that was scientifically indefensible, or to Darwin, who said that it was “overwhelming evil.”

but he also said unless there is justification by another greater good…

No. He said any possible benefit would be outweighed by the overwhelming evil of eugenic ideas.

**"Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist: but he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree.
**

That is the part of Darwin that has robbed every living person of the dignity of being created in the image of God to be a temple of the Holy Spirit!

I’m sorry you think so. Your opinion is contradictory to the teaching of the Catholic Church that our bodies might be evolved, but our souls are the image of God.

I previously posted an argument showing that human language is not just highly evolved animal sounds and signs and that simply because animals can learn to respond to sounds or signs is not the same as human use of language and symbols…

Turns out that gorillas and chimps at least can use language, invent new words, and even use words to deceive. Language is not what makes us uniquely like God.

I am glad you posted Pope Pius’s statment:

That’s very kind of you. The fact that the last three popes have acknowledged the compatibility of evolutionary theory with our faith, is usually an irritant for Darwin-haters.

“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”
Pope Pius XII

And remember John Paul IIs insistence that the Catholic view is that man is the ‘crown’ of creation.

Yep. But not our bodies.

But science has consistently worked to downgrade the human person rather than to show that there is an inherent dignity and worth:

Sorry, not a honest statement. Indeed, not merely Darwin, but many other scientists did just the opposite.

(bizarre misconceptions about science)

Whoo… haven’t heard that kind of prune product in a while. Not a Catholic, I hope.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

In thanking you for including the quote by Pope Pius X I was only agreeing in the content, afterall I had previously posted it as well along with the fact that the idea that the human soul is instantaneously or immediately created…while Darwin seems to think it evolves out of animal though patterns some how. While Darwin says with one side of his mouth that he ‘can’t talk about the spiritual side of man’, with the other side of his mouth he tries to do just that by interpreting himan conscience as evolved animal instinct. That disturb me and any grounded Catholic. It should disturb you and rais lots of red flags!

About the web site I posted by the Brazilian journalist/philosopher,

I just discovered his writings, but apparently he has been using his skills as a writer and commentator to fight secular progrssive religion in Brazil. here is somehing else he wreote showing his concern for Catholic orthodoxy:

the article is calle 'mere coincidences" and is about links between church officials in Brazil apparently and catholics for Free Choice. His article is aimed at exposing the hypocrosy in different obvious situations and calls the faithful to speak out and support true teachings of the church.

"And what malicious mind would see something more than a coincidence in the fact that the Dominican School of Theology, in São Paulo, promotes a commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declatation of Human Rights with the support and sponsorship of whom? Of Catholics for a Free Choice.
…

In addition to that very same author, in two articles published in The Globe, it was shown that the so-called Catholics for a Free Choice is not in any sense a Catholic entity, that it is only so-named to deceive the faithful, that it is really a national branch of a satanic organization, created with the explicit purpose of fighting for the destruction of the Church. The president of the organization became somewhat flustered when confronted with the argument, but, with the flagrant dishonesty of her response, ended up confirming it completely.

The NCBB, it’s clear, would never associate with an entity dedicated to the destruction of the Church. Therefore, it was also by mere coincidence, and without any guilt on the part of the NCBB, that an interview with Dulce Xavier, spokeswoman for Catholics for a Free Choice, appeared in the official DVD of this year’s Fraternity Campaign. If Catholics buy a copy of the disc expecting to find the anti-abortion teaching that the Christian faith and successive papal decrees make obligatory for all the faithful, and finds himself, to the contrary, with a defense of abortion, he should not for one minute suspect the elevated intentions and the perfect orthodoxy of the NCBB.

Obedient to the hierarchy, more than the word of Jesus Christ and the traditions of the Church, he should try to find some tranquilizing explanation for the event. If one is found, let me know, because I haven’t found any."
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08012104.html

Most of his writings on the internet are in Spanish but he sounds like a very brave individual. I agreed with his statments that man has been dehumanized…and Darwin dehumanized all of us when he classes us as evolved animals rather than honestly stating what can be observed and rationally defined as differences between humans and animals…our ability to compose, create, think abstractly, imagine beyond the present time and place, and integrate many different ideas in complex ways…

Man is not just another animal. You can’t become a human being just be talking walking and socializing, which is what Darwin basically proposed:

".For Darwin the “moral faculties of man” were not original and inherent, but evolved from “social qualities” acquired “through natural selection, aided by inherited habit.” Just as life came from the nonliving, so also the moral came from the nonmoral.

From the beginning, then, Darwin rejected the Christian natural law argument, according to which human beings are moral by nature. Instead, he followed the pattern of the modern natural right reasoning of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which assumed that human beings were naturally asocial and amoral, and only became social and moral historically. That is why Darwin called his account a natural history of morality.

For Darwin, in order to become moral we first had to become social. “In order that primeval men, or the ape-like progenitors of man, should have become social,” Darwin reasoned, “they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings which impel other animals to live in a body.” As with all animal instincts, the “social instincts” of man were the result of variations bringing some benefit for survival.

What we call “conscience” was also the result of natural selection. Darwin described it as a “feeling of dissatisfaction which invariably results . . . from any unsatisfied instinct.” Since the “ever-enduring social instincts” were more primitive and hence stronger than instincts developed later, the social instincts were the sources of our feelings of unease when some action of ours violated them. Such feelings of unease, Darwin explained, we now call “conscience.”

discovery.org/a/1122

And I know you won’t like the fact I am using a “Discovery” website article…but I agree with the content. I think this is what is wrong with Darwin. It has hurt all of us.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

In thanking you for including the quote by Pope Pius X I was only agreeing in the content, afterall I had previously posted it as well along with the fact that the idea that the human soul is instantaneously or immediately created…while Darwin seems to think it evolves out of animal though patterns some how.

That’s not what he said, was it? It appears that you are unwilling to accept what he actually said, and prefer to make up your own ideas for him.

While Darwin says with one side of his mouth that he ‘can’t talk about the spiritual side of man’, with the other side of his mouth he tries to do just that by interpreting himan conscience as evolved animal instinct. That disturb me and any grounded Catholic. It should disturb you and rais lots of red flags!

If God gave us a conscience by natural means as he gave us so many other things, why would that disturb you? Our conscience is not our soul, and the operation of the brain is not our mind.

(stuff about Brazilian cults?)

** I agreed with his statments that man has been dehumanized…and Darwin dehumanized all of us when he classes us as evolved animals**

So you’re saying Pope Benedict XVI has dehumanized us all by saying we are evoved animals? Sorry, I have to disagree.

rather than honestly stating what can be observed and rationally defined as differences between humans and animals…our ability to compose, create, think abstractly, imagine beyond the present time and place, and integrate many different ideas in complex ways…

Apes can do much of this. As the Church teaches, this is not what separates us from animals.

Man is not just another animal. You can’t become a human being just be talking walking and socializing, which is what Darwin basically proposed:

Your own Darwin quote says otherwise, Mary.

And I know you won’t like the fact I am using a “Discovery” website article…

It’s like asking Fidel Castro to comment on Ronald Reagan, um?

If you want to know the truth about someone, it’s probably not good to ask people who hate him.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

You really twist things don’t you?

Saying that Pope Benedict supports or approves belief in materialistic evolution is false…All the Pope’s and the teachings of the church say that God intervened when man was created. That the soul was not created through materialistic processes, but that each individual soul is created for the body it is joined to in an instantaneous manner…not over time . Thus human beings are different from animals which is my point. Darwin has this wrong., The science text books are wrong to teach man is just another animal. It has had a domino effect leading to stealing each of us of the dignity with which we were created. It has taken away the sense of the preciousness of each individual life and led to people being treated like what they have been defined as…animals. Darwin implied this in his writings by putting animals and people in the same category and then going even further and using animal husbandry techniques…implying they could be used with human…

Don’t try to push the idea that Pope benedict or Pope John Paul II agreed with any of that.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[JFT]

corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRmOTU2YzZlN2RhMzhjNzEwNzQ3MzFiZDE2NjM3NWE=

In an interview with the Trinity Broadcasting Network, Ben Stein said the following amazing thing in an interview with Paul Crouch, Jr.

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers *, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed ... that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: ... Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

(Full video here tbn.org/video_portal/*)

This is so true. It amazes me how science was doing so well when it had a sense of ethical and moral responsibility. Nowadays, though, it seems that science is being used as a eugenical cudgel with which to batter society at large.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Thank you JFT. This issue should not just be seen as something
of the past. It is being played out today and endangering every single person.

The story about the Chinese girl who was not “pretty” enough to be seen on the world stage so they replaced her with a ‘more fit’ example of homo-sapien, a beuatiful little girl who non-the-less was lip singing for the other little girl. Each of these little girls had gifts and were precious, but the strange need to show only a ‘perfect’ child rezulted in a false idea presented on stage. How much more beautiful it would have been to see the true face of the singer for every human person who does not have that perfect external beauty, to affirm that there are more gifts than pefect physical beauty that give each of us worth.

Darwin dresses up animals, notices behaviours which can be likened to human behaviours and then draws the conclusion that human behaviours and animal behaviours are the same. He neglects to talkabout the many different behaviors of humans which have no counterpart in the animal world whatsoever, especially in the area of creative endeavors. Animals work by instinct, people by reflection and choices with the possibility of innovation and creation…often with no practical reasoning.

Look at Stonehenge! What reason did that mysterious structure serve for survival? Why the huge, communal effort necessary to bring those large stones such distance? To put meat on the table? Of curse not. Stonehenge dates to the 2000 BC, and the Woman of Wilendorf dates much earlier to 22,000 BC. They now claim the creation of these small artifacts can be detected at even earlier dates, although they may be less sophisticated. These artifacts and the mere fact that human beings so many thousands of years ago were involved with symbolic representations that were not for survival but for worship or remembering ancestors or loved ones shows that human beings are wired differently…not the same, as animals. Darwin has this wrong. You do not have to talk about escoteric, or unknowable spiritual truths to observe the facts that human beings are different from animals from the very beginning.

And how far will science go? I saw an article allowing for a robot run by tissues from a rat brain…why not put a human brain into a machine? We really need to reign in the sciences before it goes way to far.

There was a series out on Art and why humans produce art likening it to birds pecking at colored sticks which remind them of their Mother’s beak. How proposterous! The human beings back at Lascoux Cave produced amazing artwork that Picasso marveled at saying ‘I have done nothing new’ …they were symbolizing, reflecting, loving, hoping, dreaming, abstracting, from the very beginning. I daresay, that any African tribe or what we consider primitive peoples may lack our technological knowledge and libraries, but their men and women lie awake and night, stare up at the stars, wonder and pray and reflect about life
much as we do. if we have lost our faith because of our technology
then perhaps we are the ones that have digressed. Simply because our brains have more ‘facts’ to manipulate doesn’t mean that we are so much more advanced, not does it mean that these other people are closer to being animals as Darwin would have believed.

In Christ, maryJohnZ