Churches rejecting science altogether

[donsnow]

Hi, alec,

I’m being rational, not difficult. Do you usually have a problem with people asking you to give reasons for your assertions?

Well, sir, there can always be too much of a good thing, and I think you’re being too rational. No, I’ve never had a problem giving people my reasons for my statements.

No, we cannot. All manner of diseases are treated only with proteins and peptides which can be produced only by recombinant techniques (ie putting the gene for the protein into something living, currently usually bacteria but in the future plants and possibly animals, and harvesting the expressed protein). I gave you some examples of those. That is how insulin-dependent diabetics are currently kept alive. There is no synthetic chemical process to make human insulin that does not involve expression of proteins in living organisms. It’s been like this for decades. (The old method of harvesting cow or pig insulin from the pancreases of slaughtered animals has many problems).

I don’t believe you.

But you still haven’t given anyone a reason for your belief that recombinant techniques are inherently evil other than a blind assertion. As for good coming of it, I suggest you find an insulin dependent diabetic (that shouldn’t be difficult - there are 151,000 insulin dependent diabetics below the age of 20 and 340,000 in total in the USA) and ask them whether they think that any good is coming from the recombinant insulin that is keeping them alive. Or ask a haemophiliac if any good is coming from her recombinant clotting factor VIIA, VIII or IX. Good is coming of it now and has been for 25 years.

The reason for my belief is quite simple. God made each of His creatures with the DNA He, for His reason, endowed to each creature. To me, it is presumptous to change them and smacks of the Devil’s problem… thinking he knows better than God. He doesn’t, neither do we. With any reverence for God, we should leave the DNA alone and accept the subsequent health loses.

Other than your personal idiosyncratic conviction, do you have any rationale for thinking that the process is evil? The Catholic church certainly doesn’t agree with you.

My rational is above.
I have never heard the Catholic Church that this is not evil.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

All manner of diseases are treated only with proteins and peptides which can be produced only by recombinant techniques (ie putting the gene for the protein into something living, currently usually bacteria but in the future plants and possibly animals, and harvesting the expressed protein). I gave you some examples of those. That is how insulin-dependent diabetics are currently kept alive. There is no synthetic chemical process to make human insulin that does not involve expression of proteins in living organisms. It’s been like this for decades. (The old method of harvesting cow or pig insulin from the pancreases of slaughtered animals has many problems).

I don’t believe you.

I’m not sure what it is that you don’t believe. I know you don’t *want *to believe me but nevertheless what I wrote is true, as you will see if you research the facts about recombinant protein and peptide therapy.

The reason for my belief is quite simple. God made each of His creatures with the DNA He, for His reason, endowed to each creature. To me, it is presumptous to change them and smacks of the Devil’s problem… thinking he knows better than God. He doesn’t, neither do we. With any reverence for God, we should leave the DNA alone and accept the subsequent health loses.

Now that wasn’t too difficult was it. Of course this is your personal belief and is not in any way reflected in the teaching of the Catholic Church, but as it’s a conscientious position (like the refusal of some sects to accept blood transfusions), it’s your call. Just make sure that if you have the misfortune to develop a condition that can be treated by recombinant protein therapy that you refuse it.

I have never heard the Catholic Church that this is not evil.

I have never seen teaching or condemnation from the Church against recombinant therapeutics, and since Catholic doctors by the thousand prescribe recombinant insulin and Catholic parents by the tens of thousands allow their children to use it and since it is routinely used in Catholic hospitals worldwide, I think the onus is on you to find a teaching or a proclamation against it. Good luck.

And because it is a serious matter for Catholic parents of Type 1 diabetic children who might be reading this and might be concerned that they are in some way going against the teaching of the Church, because of your misleading statement, I think it is incumbent on you to concede the point (or to produce a clear statement from the teaching authority of the Church in support of it).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[donsnow]

I’m not sure what it is that you don’t believe. I know you don’t *want *to believe me but nevertheless what I wrote is true, as you will see if you research the facts about recombinant protein and peptide therapy.
Now that wasn’t too difficult was it. Of course this is your personal belief and is not in any way reflected in the teaching of the Catholic Church, but as it’s a conscientious position (like the refusal of some sects to accept blood transfusions), it’s your call. Just make sure that if you have the misfortune to develop a condition that can be treated by recombinant protein therapy that you refuse it.

What I don’t believe, is that there’s no other alternative to recombinant procedure in genetics. There may be slower alternatives and more expensive alternatives than recombinant geneticism, but there has to be alternatives. Anybody’s common sense will tell them that.

I have never seen teaching or condemnation from the Church against recombinant therapeutics, and since Catholic doctors by the thousand prescribe recombinant insulin and Catholic parents by the tens of thousands allow their children to use it and since it is routinely used in Catholic hospitals worldwide, I think the onus is on you to find a teaching or a proclamation against it. Good luck.

Ok, here we go.
It’s common knowledge that there’s translators, bishops and priests who go astray from Magesterial and Papal teachings. There are also many skeptical college instructors who scoff at any Christian and other religious teachings. I allow none of those, nor their teachings, no authority over me.
Just like you and everybody else, I have the choice of to whom to give authority over me. And, there are so many authorities, nowadays. So, I choose to prioritize whom I allow to have authority over me. First, Christ; then His Pope; And then the rest of His Holy Roman Catholic Church including the Magisterium, Traditions, etc; then secular law including law enforcement officers, as well as secular judges. Then, since I had good instructors who also honored authority in a like priority, I would, if in a classroom, allow that instructor authority, in the subject he or she taught, over me.

When my parents were alive, they had first priority to whom I allowed to have authority over me. I still try to honor them, after their respective demises.

And, on this board, the moderators and administrators of CAF have some authority over me.

Alec, with all due respect to you as another child of God, I don’t see any indication that you are among any of those I grant authority over me. So, I am free to debate what you say.

Finally, about priests and bishops. Some of them are true to the Church and Her teachings and some aren’t. So, when there’s doubt in my mind about morals and ethics, I go by the Holy Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
And, with all due respect of what you’ve learned from the authorities you choose to let have authority over you, I say again: when recombinant genetics mix human and animal DNA, that is evil.
I know that.
It therefore follows, that anybody who tells you differently is not only misled but also is misleading you.
That’s all there is to that.

And because it is a serious matter for Catholic parents of Type 1 diabetic children who might be reading this and might be concerned that they are in some way going against the teaching of the Church, because of your misleading statement, I think it is incumbent on you to concede the point (or to produce a clear statement from the teaching authority of the Church in support of it).

The proponents of recombinant genetics are not the first people which use the children to mislead the parents. That, sir, is an advertising and political tactic as old as advertising and pollitics.

You know the Church hasn’t issued a clear and plain statement that recombinant genetics which mix human and animal DNA is either evil or not. Or, if it has, I don’t know where to look for it.

Sir, I am not my own authority. Just like anybody and eveybody else in the world, the only authority I have is what to choose and how to prioritize my choices in my own life.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

God loves you,
Don

 

[grannymh]

The reason for my belief is quite simple. God made each of His creatures with the DNA He, for His reason, endowed to each creature. To me, it is presumptous to change them and smacks of the Devil’s problem… thinking he knows better than God. He doesn’t, neither do we. With any reverence for God, we should leave the DNA alone and accept the subsequent health loses.

.

I understand where you are coming from but your reasoning is missing an important step regarding DNA. It is that a person is able to freely give a sample of DNA, blood, etc… without physical harm to herself or himself. If this free sample can reduce suffering of another, it becomes a practice of charity.

 

[kbachler]

I understand where you are coming from but your reasoning is missing an important step regarding DNA. It is that a person is able to freely give a sample of DNA, blood, etc… without physical harm to herself or himself. If this free sample can reduce suffering of another, it becomes a practice of charity.

Arguably, even if it does harm to herself/himself, if it is a freely given sample, it is still charity.

 

[hecd2]

Arguably, even if it does harm to herself/himself, if it is a freely given sample, it is still charity.

To be fair to Don, this isn’t what he has a problem with. He has a problem with all cases where some genes of one species are inserted into the genome in the cells of another species in order to express the proteins because he believes that the natural DNA sequence of all organisms is God-given and shouldn’t be tampered with (whatever the source of the DNA fragments that are inserted). That’s his view and I have no problem with him having that view - that’s his business (although, of course, I disagree with the view). What I do have a problem with is where he represents that as being the view of the Church (which it isn’t), and where he berates scientists for producing recombinant proteins because, in his view, it should be obvious to them that the process is evil.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[grannymh]

By the way - and to respond directly to the OP, the reason that some denominations and some religious individuals reject science altogether is rather plain to see. It arises from a direct conflict between the evidence and reason on the one hand and the interpretation of revelation and tradition by the denomination or the individual on the other hand.

Yes and no.
What you describe is often the case. However, there is another way of looking at this type of rejection. The evidence is not necessarily the only item to determine a direct conflict. One needs to examine the conclusion. Does the evidence actually support the conclusion? In what degree? Is the conclusion extrapolated beyond that which is warranted by the evidence? Does the truth of the conclusion absolutely, universally rule out all other possibilities?

On the other hand, interpretation of revelation and tradition is as varied as there are religions. Ignorance of what is actual declared dogma is also a factor. It seems that sometimes it is easier to reject science than to take the time to understand both science and faith.

So, for example, if one is committed to a particular literalistic interpretation of scripture that is in direct contradiction to what science demonstrates to be the case, then one is bound either to dismiss the efficacy of science altogether or to engage in special pleading to challenge the particular scientific conclusions that are in conflict with one’s belief.

Not exactly.
The efficacy of science does not have to be dismissed altogether. Science, in my humble opinion, is neutral. How science is conducted, interpreted, and applied in relationship to scientific standards as well in relationship to moral standards is essential. Ethical or moral questions in science do get asked. Scientists, in general, do care about their work and they do take their responsibility seriously.

Instead of special pleading, it is possible to challenge the interpretations of particular
science demonstrations especially in this decade. But this is not as simple as it sounds. Out of respect for the forum’s ban, I will simply say that technology is changing.

The latter approach can seldom be isolated to a small area of science - since the scientific edifice is made up of a huge number of interdependent and interlocking elements, any attempt to pull one area down leads inevitably to rejection of other areas of science, ultimately leading to rejection of a range of well accepted science disciplines or all of them.

From what I am observing, this is very true. One difficulty is that some people assume that God is being rejected by every science discipline which uses a model from a designated objectionable area of science. One simply cannot lump all science disciplines into a black bag.

We see that here on this forum over and over again with arguments about cosmology, earth sciences, biology, geocentrism and so on. The Catholic Church herself, although she has had her regrettable incidents, is generally an exemplary supporter and promoter of the scientific method, understanding as she does the theological and philosophical consequences of setting up a conflict between revelation and tradition on one hand, and science on the other. Sadly, I have noticed an increasing tendency of some individual Catholics over the last few years to take a far less integrated view and there are some who reject almost every standard scientific discipline in a way that is more akin to fundamental Protestantism than the Catholicism in which I was raised.

While I see the fundamentalism, I also know that some of Catholicism’s theological positions have been under attack for decades. I get this funny feeling that some of the people who disagree with individual Catholic dogmas are now using science as additional support. Or they are using science as an excuse.

One or two have suggested that scientists should not express their atheism - but why should they not? Believers look at the world and what they see reinforces their faith and they say so. Atheists look at the world and they see no evidence that compels them to belief and faith and they say so. In neither case are these views expressed in scientific publications - both believers and atheists are using the entire experience of their lives, including what they know from their professions to reach and to express a worldview. What is wrong with that?

In my humble opinion, expressing an atheistic worldview is part of real life. There is nothing wrong with that.
Unfortunately, I live in an area which is home to a militant atheist organization. There is a lot wrong with that.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[donsnow]

I understand where you are coming from but your reasoning is missing an important step regarding DNA. It is that a person is able to freely give a sample of DNA, blood, etc… without physical harm to herself or himself. If this free sample can reduce suffering of another, it becomes a practice of charity.

Hi, granny,

This is probably what the Church allows. I wasn’t addressing that in my posts. I guess willingly giving up some of my DNA would be like donating blood to Carter Blood, or to the Red Cross.

But, I would still hesitate to give up my DNA. There’s just something there that I can’t express.
I have given blood and at times plasma, several times in my younger days.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

To be fair to Don, this isn’t what he has a problem with. He has a problem with all cases where some genes of one species are inserted into the genome in the cells of another species in order to express the proteins because he believes that the natural DNA sequence of all organisms is God-given and shouldn’t be tampered with (whatever the source of the DNA fragments that are inserted). That’s his view and I have no problem with him having that view - that’s his business (although, of course, I disagree with the view). What I do have a problem with is where he represents that as being the view of the Church (which it isn’t), and where he berates scientists for producing recombinant proteins because, in his view, it should be obvious to them that the process is evil.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Thank you, hecd2,

I appreciate your understanding.

I haven’t meant to present myself as representing Church teaching; that’s why I have stated in my posts I’m not sure what the Church teaches on this.

I will plainly state now, that it’s my opinion, and I don’t know what the Church teaches on this, that recombinant geneticism can be evil. Again, I do not condemn the geneticists doing that, it’s the action that I see as evil.

I haven’t meant to disturb you, I have posted bluntly so as not to be two-faced.

God loves you,
Don
You have stated my position well, alec.

 

[edwest2]

Here is more information about what the Catholic Church thinks about genetically modified food:

gmo-compass.org/eng/news/547.vatican_scientists_see_moral_imperative_gmo.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Here is more information about what the Catholic Church thinks about genetically modified food:

gmo-compass.org/eng/news/547.vatican_scientists_see_moral_imperative_gmo.html

Peace,
Ed

Thank you Ed for this link. It is a good example of Catholic interest in the advancements of genetic science.

It is important to realize that this link represents the thinking of forty individuals who came together as a group to discuss issues, pro and con, regarding genetically modified crops being used in areas where the poor and vulnerable live.

The link is about this particular meeting of international scientists including seven Vatican advisors. It refers to a statement containing 31 articles which has been released by this independent group. This link comments that although there is no official endorsement by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, as of November 2010, the Academy has expressed provisional support in the past. The link is interesting since it refers to issues involving the poor of the world and what kind of solutions can be offered by 21st century science.

Blessings,
granny

All persons are sacred because each is an unique creation by a loving Creator.

 

[donsnow]

Here is more information about what the Catholic Church thinks about genetically modified food:

gmo-compass.org/eng/news/547.vatican_scientists_see_moral_imperative_gmo.html

Peace,
Ed

Thanks, Ed,

The thing is, this article refers to Golden Rice, genetically modified by addition of proto Vitamin A and another strain with Vitamin A added.

This article does not endorse, imho, human DNA in rice.

God loves you,
Don

 

[grannymh]

Thanks, Ed,

The thing is, this article refers to Golden Rice, genetically modified by addition of proto Vitamin A and another strain with Vitamin A added.

This article does not endorse, imho, human DNA in rice.

God loves you,
Don

I took the article’s words “provisional support” seriously as in referring to “be careful–there is more than what meets the eye.” It never occurred to me to think about human DNA in grains of rice.

 

[buffalo]

Here is a great site:

National Catholic Bioethics Center

 

[Glennonite]

"

Born a scientist? Wow! [just kidding]

Amen!

All truth comes from God. Science is a systematice method that seeks to know the Truth “from the things He has made.” (Rom 1:20). Being critical of “positivism” is one thing, rejecting all of science is ridiculous.

"
Yeah, I mean, the scientific method is such a reasonable approach to understanding God’s created universe. It’s a SELF-CORRECTING system. As a matter of fact, the first thing all scientists do whenever a new scientific discovery is reported, is try to either replicate it or disprove it.

Science; it’s God’s “yes-man”…eventually, at least.

Glennonite

 

[Glennonite]

Well, Perfect Timing,

These folks don’t know the teaching of their Holy Bible. I’m sorry I forget which epistle, but Christians are enjoined to respect science.
I remember this, because I was so surprised to see the word ‘science’ in Holy scripture.

God loves you,
Don

I’m sorry, where did you see this in scripture? I’m all for both God and faith without conflict, but I don’t remember the passage to which you refer.

Thanks, Glennonite

 

[Glennonite]

A quick definition: Science is that which comes from “science books,” universities and research and development in companies, corporations and foundations.

Do you have the innate wit to manufacture simple boxes of toothpicks? It’s much tougher than you think! Designing and manufacturing the machines needed to manufacture toothpicks is an awesome task!

No offense, but…after reading your last three posts…I have no idea what you are talking about. ???

The definition of science is: the process of hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion. Then start over until you have an axiom that is reliable.

Glennonite

 

[donsnow]

I took the article’s words “provisional support” seriously as in referring to “be careful–there is more than what meets the eye.” It never occurred to me to think about human DNA in grains of rice.

Hi, grannymh,

Last week, one of the email newsletters I subscribe to had an article about a rice being developed to feed children in third world nations so the children can survive diarrhea and dysentery. It had some other DNA added to it to accomplish that. I don’t know if I can find that newsletter, because I can’t remember if the recombinant DNA in that rice were human or animal. The article said a test field is being grown in Kansas, because there’s no other rice fields in Kansas for that crop to contaminate.
Since I remember the article upsetting me so, I would say the recombinant DNA in that rice is a protein from human DNA.

Just for the record, my doctor knows I turn down a life extending treatment. Mixed DNA in GM foods is one I would also turn down, if the package admitted that.
Please don’t think me cruel nor naive when I believe that “Keep faith to death” in the scriptures means what it says.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

Here is a great site:

National Catholic Bioethics Center

Thanks, buffalo,

I’m going to have to dig a little deeper into that site, because the Bioethic FAQ’s page didn’t mention recombinant DNA.

But, it’s sure a good source website, so I bookmarked it.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

I’m sorry, where did you see this in scripture? I’m all for both God and faith without conflict, but I don’t remember the passage to which you refer.

Thanks, Glennonite

Hi, Glennonite,

Here you go, one OT and one NT quotes.

(This is in the context of the Jewish children in Babylon that the king chose for his court bold letters my emphasis) Douay-Rheims translation, Challoner edition:
Daniel 1, 4 "Children in whom there was no blemish, well favored, and skillful in all wisdom, acute in knowledge, and instructed in sience, and such as might stand in the king’s palace, that he might teach them the learning, and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

Ok, in the Roman Catholic translations, “science” in I Timothy 6, 20 is rendered as “knowledge”. So, from the King James Version:
1 Timothy 6,20 “O, Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”

verse 21 goes on to say, “Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.”

Hey, this Church/Science thing has been going on since the Church began!!!
How about those apples?

I had forgotten the text, remembering only the word “science” was in the Holy Bible.