D
Desertsailor
Guest
No it wouldn’t. The Pope agrees with me.
- Status
B
Benadam
Guest
R
redneck22
Guest
Certainly no excuse, but the discovery of DNA by Francis Crick and his co discoverer James Watson didn’t quell darwinian racism.
Science museum bans DNA genius at centre of race row
The 79-year-old geneticist said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really”.
He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “*people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.*The views are also included in a new book, published this week, in which he writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically".”*Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so," *
In addition, he also stated that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great.
And he is no stranger to controversy, reportedly saying that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual.
During his talk, Watson suggested that there was a biochemical link between exposure to sunlight and sexual urges.
Black people had more powerful libidos, he said. This was supported by the fact that when the skin of a number of white men had turned black as a side-effect of a scientific test, they had immediately become sexually aroused.
“That’s why you have Latin lovers,” he explained. “You’ve never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient.”
He went on to show a slide of a melancholy Kate Moss, saying that thin people were unhappy and therefore more ambitious.
“Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad because you know you’re not going to hire them,” Watson said.
The theory of evolution is a joke that would be hilarious, if it wasn’t so sad and tragic. The social and philosophical implications are huge, not to mention there is no scientific support that microbes became human.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I’m afraid not – read some theology.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Redneck, I encourage you to walk onto the campus of a Catholic university some day. Visit the biology department. As the biologists why they accept the evolutionary explanation for terrestrial biodiversity as the most cogent, and why they don’t consider “Young Earth” or “Intelligent Design” creationism to be science.
R
redneck22
Guest
I’m sure there response would be some thing like, they define evolution as “change”, then call all change evolution, then accept any changes as proof of evolution and claim such change disproves special creation.
Maybe I’ll bump into the great evolutionary biologist Richard Lewotin who will tell me *"…we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” *
(“Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, pp. 28, 31, emphasis mine).
G
grannymh
Guest
Ah, one asks. When will the educated ones figure out that human beings have both material and spiritual life in one human nature? Just like the first sole parents of the human species, aka Adam and Eve. Maybe when the educated ones figure out that there is something beyond natural science?
Ah, one says. To lift one’s eyes from one’s own exploration of one’s own choice of the material and physical realm takes humility.
Ah, one asks. Can the educated ones accept humility? Only when they can accept their own human nature in relationship to our Creator. This really means that one can be either educated or not educated – what really counts is our search for God.
Blessings,
granny
The quest for truth is worthy of the difficulties of the journey.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Have you ever set foot on a college or university campus? Have you ever interviewed a biologist? Have you ever spoken with a Catholic biologists? Have you ever spoken with a biologist who is also a Catholic priest? You might find these experiences interesting and instructive.
StAnastasia
R
ricmat
Guest
StA - you teach on a college campus (at a “Catholic” university, as I recall). When your students are finished with the classes you teach, are they more in love with the teachings of the Church? Or are they more in love with the teachings of StA - your vision of the way God should be, and the way the church should be?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I hope so.
P
PeterK
Guest
StA,
Hello, again.
Hope all is well.
I just had to chime in and say you remind me of Neo in the scene in the second Matrix flic. It is the one that has multiple ‘bad guys’ shooting multiple guns point blank at Neo in some fancy classical foyer. Neo holds his hand up in a ‘stop’ position and all the bullets freeze about a foot before him. The guns exhaust their ammo. The bullets remain suspended in mid air. Neo flips his wrist and the bullets all fall to the marble floor. The head bad guy [sorry I’m not geeky enough to know all the proper fictional names] says, “All right. So you have some skill.” A fight scene ensues. Neo defeats the goons. The head bad guy follows this with what I sense the creationist to be saying to you in these many threads, “Listen boy! [girl - for you] I survived your predecessors and I will survive you!”
Ha!
If you haven’t seen the flick - rent it for this scene alone. You’ll laugh…
Peace
Petek
Hello, again.
Hope all is well.
I just had to chime in and say you remind me of Neo in the scene in the second Matrix flic. It is the one that has multiple ‘bad guys’ shooting multiple guns point blank at Neo in some fancy classical foyer. Neo holds his hand up in a ‘stop’ position and all the bullets freeze about a foot before him. The guns exhaust their ammo. The bullets remain suspended in mid air. Neo flips his wrist and the bullets all fall to the marble floor. The head bad guy [sorry I’m not geeky enough to know all the proper fictional names] says, “All right. So you have some skill.” A fight scene ensues. Neo defeats the goons. The head bad guy follows this with what I sense the creationist to be saying to you in these many threads, “Listen boy! [girl - for you] I survived your predecessors and I will survive you!”
Ha!
If you haven’t seen the flick - rent it for this scene alone. You’ll laugh…
Peace
Petek
R
ricmat
Guest
Exactly! LOL
F
fnr
Guest
I don’t disagree on the endpoint of the argument (e.g., that God intentionally created our universe so we could exist). However, I disagree as to when the “designer” had to play a role.
Common genetic material can be used for many different arguments. Do you know that modern humans have an inactive gene to produce vitamin C, yet we don’t do it? It’s an essential nutrient that we need to live, but our bodies don’t produce it, despite the fact that we all have the gene to do it. Many other mammals CAN produce vitamin C directly, so why don’t we? We’ve got the common genetic material, right? Turns out other primates are in the same position.
The evolutionary argument is that producing vitamin C is a relatively energy-intensive process, metabolically speaking. It just so happened that the fruits our vegetables our ancestors ate for other reasons, which the ancestors of other mammals didn’t do (e.g, dogs and other primary carnivores), had vitamin C that plants delivered along with other nutrients our ancestors thought important.
Turns out that around 40 million years ago, one of our ancestors who was chomping on a lot of fruits and vegetables was born with a mutation in the gene for the enzyme that produces vitamin C (the gene’s called GULO, gulonolactone oxidase). That ancestor survived and had kids. Probably, many of the other members of our ancestor species also survived. However, over time, the members of our ancestral species who didn’t produce vitamin C themselves (instead of eating it) started showing that they were more efficient users of the food they consumed. The other members of the ancestral species, who were still producing vitamin C at the same time they were also consuming fruits and vegetables with enough vitamin C to carry them, started showing their relative inefficiency in using their dietary energy. Maybe they had to eat more than the more-efficient members of the species who didn’t waste energy producing a vitamin that was already in their diet. Whatever the case, over extended periods of time, the members of the species who didn’t produce vitamin C could spend more energy doing things other than eating (and going to the bathroom). With that extra free time, our non-vitamin C-producing ancestors could spend more time making (or playing with) their own kids. Eventually, the reproductive advantage of those who didn’t produce vitamin C led to the inactive GULO gene being expressed in nearly the entire population of human ancestors (which actually includes other primates, which also don’t produce vitamic C, unlike dogs and other mamals).
Turns out the ability to produce vitamin C, which was a necessity for the “irreducible complexity” of our very distant ancestors, was pretty reducible among our primate lineage.
Here’s a study in which human cells in a petri dish were “reactivated” to produce vitamin C (actually, GULO, the enzyme that produces vitamin c):
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18764764
I would posit that it takes relatively more imagination to support a theory that is totally unsupported by factual evidence. It fills me with a tremendous sense of wonder at how beautifully our universe unfolded.
On that last point, there actually is evidence of evolution happening today in many, many locations. First, look at antibiotic resistence among bacteria… the bacteria who can reproduce in the presence of an antibiotic survive, and their offspring are able to infect us even with antibacterials. Second, look at how insects become resistant to pesticides over time… many pest insects now need a much larger dose of poison before they die off (over time, this makes pesticides increasingly uneconomical). Third, look at the extinction of many large mammals in the Americas after humans arrived over the Bering… the Dire Wolf, Mastadon, Saber-tooth Tiger, etc.; compare that to large African mammals, like the lion, tiger, hyena, and elephant. The reason that there are still a lot of African mammals that Americans enjoy visiting on safari is that those animals evolved alongside our ancestors in Africa. They knew how to cope with human hunters, while the North American animals died out. Lastly, there are modern examples of “ring species” who illustrate evolution in process:
actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
I’ll defer responding to the other opinions.
R
ricmat
Guest
Funny…StA’s positions remind me rather of those of Dr. Professor Weston in Perelandra (and also in Out of the Silent Planet).
And since Perelandra is in a mythic sort of way related to Adam and Eve (or at least the fall), that seems to me to be a better fit.
For you pre-Matrix youngsters, Perelandra was a “sci-fi” book with heavy religious overtones (or perhaps it’s a religion book with heavy sci-fi overtones?) written in 1944, But it offers an interesting perspective on how our own “fall” might have occurred.
P
PeterK
Guest
I see no irony with her response. One would hope a teacher believes what they are teaching.
Petek
B
buffalo
Guest
StA - you are a member of ASA right? Can anyone guess where StA falls in the survey?
ASA members tackle Adam and Eve
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/
One interesting result of the ASA survey noted below was the great division of the membership on Adam and Eve. There are small minorities offering every view from “Adam and Eve had no contemporaries, and were the biological ancestors of all humans, living in Mesopotamia around 10,000 years ago.” (5.8%)
through to
“There were no historical individuals corresponding to Adam and Eve.” (11%)
The really interesting thing is that 31.9% of respondents (the only large minority) said, “The Bible is consistent with several of the above options and the issue is not of great importance.”
more…
ASA members tackle Adam and Eve
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/
One interesting result of the ASA survey noted below was the great division of the membership on Adam and Eve. There are small minorities offering every view from “Adam and Eve had no contemporaries, and were the biological ancestors of all humans, living in Mesopotamia around 10,000 years ago.” (5.8%)
through to
“There were no historical individuals corresponding to Adam and Eve.” (11%)
The really interesting thing is that 31.9% of respondents (the only large minority) said, “The Bible is consistent with several of the above options and the issue is not of great importance.”
more…
G
grannymh
Guest
Looks like the old gang is dropping by.
Pepsi anyone?
Blessings,
granny
The human person is the apple of God’s eye.
Pepsi anyone?
Blessings,
granny
The human person is the apple of God’s eye.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Yes, I am. It was an interesting survey. 276 of us responded that “the Bible is consistent with several of the above options.”StA - you are a member of ASA right? Can anyone guess where StA falls in the survey?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Thanks, PeterK – I’m embarrassed to say I haven’t seen The Matrix. But with one son graduated this past weekend, we may have some leisure time to watch it. I’m proud to say Michael’s elementary school prepared him well for the National Catholic High School Entrance exam – he scored in the 99.9 percentile, and he gave one of the four valedictorian addresses.
StAnastasia
- Status