O
Orogeny
Guest
Abortion was happening before the “scientific establishment” was around. How can that be?
Peace
Tim
- Status
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
Aaahhh! The real question - Who is the Church?
The Church is the human component of the Body of Christ who is the sole arbiter of truth.
R
ricmat
Guest
Should not all our “works” pass through some kind of moral filter before actions are taken?
Some people have lost their consciences, and any vestiges of the natural law that is inscribed in their hearts. So, yes, Vatican approval would be a good start for those folks.
Indeed it was a sad day. Human beings killed for body parts to support a hypothetical, “maybe this will work” cure for other human beings.
Here’s the current scorecard for how humanity has so far benefited from all those dead babies. How insane that we pursue that path when adult stem cells are so successful (also on the scorecard).
G
grannymh
Guest
Let’s be more realistic.
The above should read – welcome to the amoral world of the “whatever” establishment. Let’s not exclude the financial establishment or the political establishment in a Midwestern state, or, or, or, or the amoral world of my neighborhood or whatever.
It’s so nice to be sitting at a computer debating the theory of evolution or whatever. If there is to be a moral solution to anything, then we need to get off the chair (or that other popular phrase) pick up the phone, write a letter, talk to a friend, talk to a stranger. We need to move before whatever happens.
Blessings,
granny
All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.
G
grannymh
Guest
Good statement. To be repetitive. Let’s be realistic. The Catholic Church is you and I and others of like mind.
Now, what is the Church going to do?
Blessings,
granny
All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.
B
buffalo
Guest
Lead.Good statement. To be repetitive. Let’s be realistic. The Catholic Church is you and I and others of like mind.
Now, what is the Church going to do?
Blessings,
granny
All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.
E
edwest2
Guest
To grannymh,
And we need to be witnesses to the truth on the internet as well. Two Popes have talked about how Catholics need to use new media to reach the lost, the confused and those in darkness.
God bless,
Ed
And we need to be witnesses to the truth on the internet as well. Two Popes have talked about how Catholics need to use new media to reach the lost, the confused and those in darkness.
God bless,
Ed
G
grannymh
Guest
Lead? You better check to see who is behind you, if anyone.
If you believe that society has misused the advances of science so as to abort babies in a more efficient way or to use the left-over parts for whatever, you better start leading soon.
Blessings,
granny
All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.
G
grannymh
Guest
Being witnesses to the truth on the internet is good. Thank you to all for that.
The reality is that the lost, the confused and those in darkness live in your neighborhood, work where you work, shop where you shop, and if they are lucky, they have a few dollars to bank where you bank. The reality is why would any of these people care about abortion, after all, people have the right to do whatever they want. Mercy killing, whatever. Talk about the right and wrong of evolutionary biology or whatever 'till the cows come home. But at some point soon, take time out to read the full FOCA. And then put a Catholic solution into action with a phone call or a letter.
Blessings,
granny
All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.
B
buffalo
Guest
Are you saying the Church should not lead? I do not understand.Lead? You better check to see who is behind you, if anyone.
If you believe that society has misused the advances of science so as to abort babies in a more efficient way or to use the left-over parts for whatever, you better start leading soon.
Blessings,
granny
All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.
H
hecd2
Guest
No - trained how to reason, how to experiment, how to test hypotheses, how to reject failed hypotheses, and trained in the specific subject.
So you think science is slow to change? The facts speak for themselves. Here is a small subset of the discoveries and changes made in science since 1900:
- special relativity
- general relativity
- quantum mechanics
- structure of the atom
- strong and weak nuclear forces
- discovery of all six quarks
- discovery of the W and Z bosons
- unification of EM and weak nuclear forces
- quantum electro-dynamics
- creation of Bose-Einstein condensates
- discovery of quasars
- discovery of the expansion of the universe
- the Big Bang
- detection of the cosmic microwave background
- discovery of accelerated cosmological expansion
- dark matter
- observation of super-massive black holes
- understanding of stellar evolution
- cosmic inflation
- consensus age of the universe and the solar system
- plate tectonics including mid oceanic ridges and subduction
- orogeny as a consequence of above
- Mendelian genetics accepted
- discovery of fossil record of human evolution
- that the genetic code is in DNA
- structure of DNA, and how that facilitates replication
- how DNA codes work
- Out of Africa
- symbiotic origin of eukaryotes
- discovery of Archaea
- discovery of pre-Cambrian biota
- Bolide strike as cause for extinction of dinosaurs
- origin of birds and whales
- cell signalling
- epidemiology applied to smoking
- evolutionary explanation of co-operation and altruistic punishment
- neurological correlates of cognition
You get the point - we could go on with this all day. If you think science is slow to change and accept dissent, you have not being paying attention. Science changes all the time to accommodate new data, but those who would change it need to be able to support their claims with good evidence.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
The Church acknowledges that our species could evolve by natural means. But it asserts that each of us gets an immortal soul directly from God.
The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).
This seems to contradict your argument.
The Church acknowledges that our species could evolve by natural means. But it asserts that each of us gets an immortal soul directly from God.
Nothing could exist without God. But He uses nature for most things in this world, including evolution.
Let’s take a look…
The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).
This seems to contradict your argument.
H
hecd2
Guest
I am arguing for no such thing. I know better than you do how much we don’t know, and how many new puzzles emerge for every one we solve. I wouldn’t have it any other way. It would be a dull world indeed if we had all the answers.hecd2:
You are arguing for
A) Preemptive knowledge which is entirely against scientific progress. Dark matter and dark energy are just recent developments in studying the universe. You are claiming that enough data is in, no more is coming, and we can all safely conclude that X is true and a settled matter.
However that doesn’t mean that there is nothing that is settled. Many things are settled, and one of those is common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees.
I’m afraid you don’t get to play the “my religious beliefs are sacrosanct and cannot be questioned” card with me. As far as I understand it, this forum is open to all, and I am not going censor my ideas because they might contradict yours.
This is a classical case of begging the question.
If that means that, in your world, science is incompetent to assess stories such as Noah’s flood, then you are wrong.
.
Really? The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
“The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason”
I think you should apply yourself to your Catechism before you make erroneous statements.
The scientific method always ignores “the miraculous”, because anything and everything can be proven by invoking magic.
I am here to put forward my ideas and to hear, discuss and critique the ideas of others, because ideas are interesting and important, and because I am fascinated by a particular sort of blinkered thinking that seems, tragically, to have developed amongst practising Catholics since I was one.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
G
grannymh
Guest
Don’t mind me. I often mumble about the need for people to actually follow the lead of the Catholic Church when it comes to respect for human life. So that you understand which people, I’m referring to all people including you, me, and our scientists. No one needs a special name tag.
H
hecd2
Guest
Of course not. The tragedy of literalism is that Genesis 1 and 2 is a precious insight into the human condition, trivialised and devalued by the insistence on the literal interpretation of the story.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
B
buffalo
Guest
Then you will have no problem celebrating Academic Freedom Day on Darwin’s birthday Feb 12.
H
hecd2
Guest
Why do you - isn’t it beyond your competence?
The point is that we all have a worldview based on our predisposition, our knowledge and our experience. I wonder whether it is possible to argue successfully that anyone’s should take precedence because of authority or “competence”?
Alec
evolutionpages.com
B
buffalo
Guest
You are acknowledging a truth of the Bible? Fantastic.
B
buffalo
Guest
You are the one that always questions competence. When the tables are turned and you yourself are not the expert it is a problem?
It is beyond my competence. That’s why Revelation is so important.
H
hecd2
Guest
Well it is not illegal to use private or state funds for embryonic stem cell research in the USA and such research is funded by national governments elsewhere in the world.Actually I like this idea. Pass it by the The National Catholic Bioethics Center.
It was paid for by private funds because the Bush admin blocked funding by government. The government prosecutes the funding of illegal activities, it should prosecute the funding of unethical or immoral activities.
Guidance is indeed needed. Time and time again I see on the forum a request for credentials. If you want to know what is moral and ethical go to the experts - the Catholic Church.
Now, I think that it is a thoroughly good thing that Catholic bioethics committees and organisations should make an (name removed by moderator)ut to the community’s view of the ethics of ethically sensitive research such as this. The views of other religious groups, secular groups and experts in bioethics should also be considered. It would be a disaster if scientists were left unregulated to conduct research in ethically sensitive areas. I absolutely support the concept of the right and duty for society to oversee this sort of work (of course scientists have the right to argue their case and to educate the public in what they are doing - much research is badly misrepresented), through a range of advocacy groups. We have to recognise however that these ethical issues are complex, and there are a range of opinions with many stakeholders - it would be wrong for the Catholic view to take precedence.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
- Status