Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[ricmat]

I understand the process quite well. I think you might be a little unclear on the concept.

Even in a world without abortion, 20% of babies do not make it to term. Many of those, already dead, babies have to be removed from the uterous. This material is thrown away. This material, could save lives.

No one is murdering the little babies if they are already dead.

Many people do have abortions. These babies were killed. They will die whether you like it or not. They are also thrown away. How is better to throw them away than let science use them?

The important point that you seem to be missing is that science isn’t responsible for any of the things you listed, except trying to use the bodies of deceased infants to save lives.

Everything else on your list can be achieved in a really unscientific way.

One good objection to using dead babies for body parts is the following. Once dead babies become to be viewed as commodities to be bought and sold (for whatever purpose), there becomes a market for them. And supply will rise to meet demand. And what if you don’t have enough dead babies to meet the demand? Make more dead babies.

This is what is happening with the human organ “market”. Not enough people donate organs on their own, so the Chinese (as just one example) take organs from unwilling convicts and sell to the highest bidder. And I sure hope that I’m never in the hospital even in the US where somebody might say “his heart could do a lot more good to the young kid in the next room than it will do to him - yank it out.”

Here is an excellent blog that covers issues like this, as well as euthanasia, cloning, etc.

wesleyjsmith.com/blog/blogger.html

 

[The_Barbarian]

I got mine from “The Rise of Christian Europe.” But I didn’t see a reference. Now, on checking it appears that it might have been a matter of establishing old Germanic mores. The Salic code established a weregild (penalty for killing) for a woman of childbearing age at three times that of a man of the same status, and increased that to four times, if she was pregnant.

Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence that the Church sought to moderate the circumstances of the weak in society, and to protect them where possible. (some corrupt bishops notwithstanding)

 

[Sideline]

I got mine from “The Rise of Christian Europe.” But I didn’t see a reference. Now, on checking it appears that it might have been a matter of establishing old Germanic mores. The Salic code established a weregild (penalty for killing) for a woman of childbearing age at three times that of a man of the same status, and increased that to four times, if she was pregnant.

Thanks for the info. That at least narrows the search field down quite a bit.

Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence that the Church sought to moderate the circumstances of the weak in society, and to protect them where possible. (some corrupt bishops notwithstanding)

You’ll get no dispute from me. It was only the reference to the width of the stick that I was skeptical of.

 

[Memaw]

Some of those “so called” scientists have got FRS after their name if they are British, or “American Academy of Sciences” if they are American. You do not pick up those kinds of distinction by being “so called”.

Many well educated people have tried to take us down the wrong path, seems like some of those in the science field have tried to do just that. Education is great if used in the right way for the GOOD of mankind.Some seem to think they know more than God.

 

[Memaw]

One good objection to using dead babies for body parts is the following. Once dead babies become to be viewed as commodities to be bought and sold (for whatever purpose), there becomes a market for them. And supply will rise to meet demand. And what if you don’t have enough dead babies to meet the demand? Make more dead babies.

This is what is happening with the human organ “market”. Not enough people donate organs on their own, so the Chinese (as just one example) take organs from unwilling convicts and sell to the highest bidder. And I sure hope that I’m never in the hospital even in the US where somebody might say “his heart could do a lot more good to the young kid in the next room than it will do to him - yank it out.”

Here is an excellent blog that covers issues like this, as well as euthanasia, cloning, etc.

wesleyjsmith.com/blog/blogger.html

Many of those babies are NOT dead till they remove the stem cells. They are tiny but living. Some are made just for that purpose. And You cannot kill one human being, no matter how small to save the life of another human being, no matter how sick. How barbaric to think thats good. There really are some things worse than death. Thats what I mean when I say some educated people are leading us down the wrong path. Education does not always = Wisdom. True FAITH in GOD = Wisdom.

 

[Memaw]

You know, the only thing on you list that is anyway the direct cause of scientific enquiry is stem cell research.

People have been attempting to use birth control since time immemorial. Ancient Egyptians made pessaries out of camel dung. You don’t think that was probably harmful for their health?

Abortions aren’t anything new. Hippocrates was against them which certainly suggests that such a thing was not unheard of. Neither was infanticide, which goes up, shockingly, when abortions are unavailable.

Euthenasia is hardly a scientific invention. Or I should say, if it is a scientific invention, it’s a neolithic one.

Stem cell research is a new one. But try as I might I can’t figure out why anyone would have a problem with seeking out a cure for disease. No one is proposing that babies be killed for stem cells. They are mearly suggesting that the babies that don’t make it to birth can help save people who did.

These Evils may have existed for centuries but science hasn’t done anything to eliminate them either, just to try to find a better ways to outsmart GOD. The Catholic Church has tried to defend mankind from these Evils for 2,000 years. and will do so till the end of time. Mankind will never get to heaven by counting dinosaur footprints or bones. Or even by knowing when they existed. Not that I have anything against dinosaur’s, my grandkids love em.

 

[Philipp]

I took a look at that list of “PhD biologists who doubt Darwin.”

Here’s a listing of some of the more interesting fields that the Discovery Institute thinks include experts on biology:
**
Astrophysics
Computer science
Physics
“Space physics”
“Professor” (not willing to give his profession)
Philosophy
Computing
Electrical engineering
“Materials”
“Assistant Professor of Alternative Medicine” (accupuncture? aromatherapy? what?)
“Dairy Science”
“signal and image processing”
“Dept. of Technology”
“machine design”
“head of software development”
“fiber science”
“education”
“Social Pharmacy”
“PhD, Evolutionary Algorithms” **

So, let’s take a look at a comparison of scientists who do support Darwinian theory. Let’s use “Project Steve.” To be on the “Steve list”, you have to accept evolutionary theory, be named “Steve” or some variant, and have a doctorate in biology or a related field. In the US, about 1% of people are named “Steve” or some variant.

Right now, there are um… 864 Steves on that list. So, how many “Steves” do they have? Let’s see… named “steve” PhD in biology or related field…um… two, if you allow middle names (a reasonable allowance) or three if you permit any PhD in any subject, (a rather unreasonable idea; they should have some expertise in biology to be included) But let’s be generous and give them three.

So that makes 3 divided by 864, or about… um… 0.34 percent of all biologists. A tiny minority, indeed. That’s about what other estimates show. And all of them, so far, are for a religious objection.

PHILIPP: I suspect your math is correct - That only 0.34 % of all biologists question evolution. Only those outside of that stronghold feel free to express a different opinion. But I would also bet that that percentage would be very much higher but for the complete censorship in our universities both public and religious - NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED. The censorship is so complete that ACLU will come at your beck and call just as soon as an attempt is made to allow any other theory than evolution into the school systems. You guys are now working on the grade school level as well, state after state. Fear is the glue evolutionists use to hold the evolutionary fairy tale together in academia.

Of course TE is allowed on the outskirts of academia to help academia keep the common folk in line using the PAS in Rome in case of Catholics and lectures on campuses that promote theistic evolution to help keep the faculty in line.

Thank God for ICR, AIG and the Kolbe Center (Catholic)
www.kolbecenter.org

 

[mathematician]

Many well educated people have tried to take us down the wrong path, seems like some of those in the science field have tried to do just that. Education is great if used in the right way for the GOOD of mankind.Some seem to think they know more than God.

No, some seem to think that the Bible isn’t a scientific text book you can use to discover the physical origins of life.

 

[steveandersen]

PHILIPP: I suspect your math is correct - That only 0.34 % of all biologists question evolution. Only those outside of that stronghold feel free to express a different opinion. But I would also bet that that percentage would be very much higher but for the complete censorship in our universities both public and religious - NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED. The censorship is so complete that ACLU will come at your beck and call just as soon as an attempt is made to allow any other theory than evolution into the school systems. You guys are now working on the grade school level as well, state after state. Fear is the glue evolutionists use to hold the evolutionary fairy tale together in academia.

Any one who could come up with a better, radically different, theory than the current one would be in line for a Nobel prize.

In all charity, conspiracy theories don’t an argument make.

The whole notion of science is to find and explanation that best matches the available data. If there is a really good explanation of course you are going to have widespread agreement. It isn’t evidence of some cabal trying to enforce orthodoxy.

Classical mechanics has been well accepted for centuries. It is taught in the schools and anyone who doesn’t hold to it probably wouldn’t get very far in a physics curriculum. If you put forth an explanation for classical mechanics that was radically different from Newton’s and don’t get very far, that isn’t evidence for some neo-Newtonist conspiracy, it would just mean that you were wrong.

Science stands on the shoulders of giants. We refine and further our works but once the basics are established it is time to move on. Each generation doesn’t have to re-invent the wheel.

Of course TE is allowed on the outskirts of academia to help academia keep the common folk in line using the PAS in Rome in case of Catholics and lectures on campuses that promote theistic evolution to help keep the faculty in line.

Thank God for ICR, AIG and the Kolbe Center (Catholic)
www.kolbecenter.org

I fear that they damage the faith by sowing confusion and misrepresenting us to non-belivers.

 

[ricmat]

Many of those babies are NOT dead till they remove the stem cells. They are tiny but living. Some are made just for that purpose. And You cannot kill one human being, no matter how small to save the life of another human being, no matter how sick. How barbaric to think thats good. There really are some things worse than death. Thats what I mean when I say some educated people are leading us down the wrong path. Education does not always = Wisdom. True FAITH in GOD = Wisdom.

I absolutely agree with everything you said above.

My post was in response to the poster who said that “the babies are dead anyway so what’s wrong with using them for research…”

 

[Memaw]

I absolutely agree with everything you said above.

My post was in response to the poster who said that “the babies are dead anyway so what’s wrong with using them for research…”

I was just adding my 2 cents worth to your wisdom.

 

[The_Barbarian]

PHILIPP: I suspect your math is correct - That only 0.34 % of all biologists question evolution. Only those outside of that stronghold feel free to express a different opinion. But I would also bet that that percentage would be very much higher but for the complete censorship in our universities both public and religious

Horsefeathers. I knew a very nice old gentleman when I was in graduate school. He was tenured and a YE creationist. And even Stephen Gould accepted an avowed YE creationist (Kurt Wise) as a doctoral candidate. You might want to check with the ICR, to see if anyone can get into their graduate school without a loyalty oath to creationism. This is one of the more notable differences between science and creationism; science is open to dissent, but creationists strictly suppress it.

NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED.

Odd then, that most biologists have much higher IQs than most other people. Maybe it’s the official policy of the Discovery Institute?

The censorship is so complete that ACLU will come at your beck and call just as soon as an attempt is made to allow any other theory than evolution into the school systems.

It’s that darn Bill of Rights, again; the government can’t impose religion on students. Religion is fine in a course on religion, or a philosophy class, of course.

You guys are now working on the grade school level as well, state after state. Fear is the glue evolutionists use to hold the evolutionary fairy tale together in academia.

Sounds a little hysterical, considering the way creationists discriminate against anyone who doesn’t fit their ideas. Years ago, I knew a very fine person on the net, a creationist who often argued with me about various things. We became friends, and he told me that he had tried to register on the (now-defunct) ICR message board. He was open on the idea of young earth vs. old earth, and because of that, they wouldn’t accept him.

Imagine if we did things the creationist way here. Protestants could post (some of them) but Catholics couldn’t.

Of course TE is allowed on the outskirts of academia to help academia keep the common folk in line using the PAS in Rome in case of Catholics and lectures on campuses that promote theistic evolution to help keep the faculty in line.

My first course in evolution was taught by a professor who was on the board of vestry of the local Episcopal church. He was hardly “on the outskirts”; he was the chair of the zoology department.

Thank God for ICR, AIG and the Kolbe Center (Catholic)

AIG lost any credibility they might have had with me, when I discovered that they had edited the words of scientists, to make it appear that they meant the opposite of what they actually said.

There are some folks at the ICR who seem to be honest and who work hard for their faith. (They have also had people like Henry Morris, who espoused a doctrine that blacks are inferior, and Duane Gish, who has a history of false claims)

I would prefer to get my direction on the Church, from the Church. I would hope that the Kolbe Center does not fit in with the other two groups. (the members of which, deny the magisterium of the Church, BTW) I was told once, by a member of the ICR that Roman Catholicism was a “cult.”

Thank God for the ICR and AIG? No thank you.

 

[drpmjhess]

“If the reader of HPR is interested in the important debate about evolution and its role in our culture, then I recommend this readable and enlightening book by Professor Larry Azar. In recent years many evolutionists have seen the light and come to see that evolution is a pseudoscientific myth, a “fairy tale” -some even go so far as to say that it is a hoax. Here you will find the arguments for evolution and their refutation by logical rea*soning. Perhaps by the end of this century evolution will be universally recognized for what it is, a false theory, and will be ranked by most people in the same category as alchemy. Kenneth Baker S.J.”

Who is this Kenneth Baker character? Evolution as a hoax? I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered such mindboggling scientific ignorance in 28 years of teaching and conference participation! Does he have a college degree? I suppose he must, as an S.J.

 

[Namesake]

Many well educated people have tried to take us down the wrong path, seems like some of those in the science field have tried to do just that. Education is great if used in the right way for the GOOD of mankind.Some seem to think they know more than God.

Science is indifferent. Good or evil doesn’t exist in science. People can use science for good or evil, but the science is indifferent.

 

[drpmjhess]

Thank God for ICR, AIG and the Kolbe Center (Catholic)www.kolbecenter.org

Does anyone know how the name of Maximilian Kolbe came to be associated with YECism? Was he a YEC himself?

 

[steveandersen]

I do not know.

 

[ricmat]

Who is this Kenneth Baker character? Evolution as a hoax? I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered such mindboggling scientific ignorance in 28 years of teaching and conference participation! Does he have a college degree? I suppose he must, as an S.J.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

I wonder if posts like this are common on theology forums.

 

[steveandersen]

Flattery will get you nowhere.

I wonder if posts like this are common on theology forums.

There are some posts that are made here that can be very… uncharitable to scientists. Including the often-made contention that they are either part of some conspiracy or are just too unknowledgeable of their own field to have resolved certain questions.

 

[drpmjhess]

I do not know.

The Kolbe Center looks like an odd group. It’s advisor is a Ukranainian Catholic bishop who seems to have been involved in some ecclesiastical disputes in Toronto.

 

[drpmjhess]

The Kolbe Center looks like an odd group. It’s advisor is a Ukranainian Catholic bishop who seems to have been involved in some ecclesiastical disputes in Toronto.

Correction – “Ukrainian.”