Movie Expelled Gives Insight Into Eugenics

[SpiritMeadow]

Reams of evidence? Where? Mutation is no longer a valid mechanism of one spicies tranforming into another. I could understand beleiving this in the 50’s but today it just doesn’t hold up to the information at hand. Where have you been? The idea of evolution by mutation has failed. Without a valid mechanism, why believe in it? Evolution by mutation is mathematically impossible and that’s a fact.

I am not going to become in a game of proof. You know better. You have to spend a few hours watching TV to know better, if nothing at all else. It is simply accepted by nearly everyone, nearly everywhere in the world. It is the basis of multiple disciplines. I’ve engaged in dialog with you before, only to find that you have no proofs of any kind, just recopied rhetoric from sources that you want to believe it for your own personal reasons.

To suggest that evolution has been largely debunked is to simply disassemble in the most silly way. It is what is being taught EVERYWHERE where rational intelligent people congregate. Take your creationism and enjoy it. This position is a joke and will always be a joke. That is the simple fact. It deserves no work on anyone’s part to prove it to you. You have no desire to be enlightened. You NEED to believe otherwise lest your concept of God strike you down.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Look back up a few posts. SpiritMeadow used exactly that word, “fact.” She also rather misunderstands the Vatican position. The Vatican does not ‘approve’ evolution, they approve of the use of scientific method to explain nature and reassure us that such attempts to find natural explanations for things are not a threat to our faith when understood properly.

For all practical purposes to the lay person, evolution is a fact. It remains as all scientific inquiry is a theory to the people directly involved as scientists. Splitting hairs to score is fruitless. Two popes has spoken of Evolution in ways that cannot be denied as basic approval of the science as the best explanation of how life changed on this planet over time. They have essentially agreed that there is no dispute between science and religion. Science does not speak ot metaphysical things, religion does. Religion does not explain the natural world, science does.

The theory of evolution is far from a nice tidy package. Humanity likes to exaggerate its claims to mastery and understanding of the universe. That swagger and pride is what raises the hackles of many believers and propels them to reject the scientific method as the tool used to explore and understand. Such creationists fail to see that they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Posts like SpiritMeadow’s on the other hand indicate she is unaware there is some nasty bathwater in the scientific community!

I speak not to specifics of the theory. Of course, like any other, they are subject to further investigation and possible change. The basic premise however is solid and many here seem to dipute that. They do so because they view the bible as a fundamentalist does, as perfect and infallibly correct in every assertion.Such is not correct, either from Catholic doctrine or otherwise.

Biological research to date on a global basis best fits together with the theory that species did descend from simpler to more complex. That’s scientific method. But there are certainly gaping holes yet to be explained. There are likely major changes in store for biologists and things may yet be turned on their head like the physics world was when relativity was discovered. But we’ll find it when we find it. The Scripture stories tell us spiritual truth, not biology lessons. God’s no dummy. He is quite aware that humans tend to progress faster in technical knowledge than in maturity to use it properly. Why would anybody think him naive enough to give us a head start on the biological facts with Revelation?

My argument not with what you have said here.It’s with those who claim the entire thing a hoax and try to promote bad religious “documentaries” as science, when they are pure religious propaganda. Such works do more to make religion look bad than science.

 

[mapleoak]

No – it just shows that the scientific method works, and that the evidence since 1859 has increasingly supported the theory of evolution.

The evidence since 1859 has increasingly supported the falsity of the theory of evolution. Once of many, many, many such bits of evidence was the discovery of REM sleep.

 

[drpmjhess]

The evidence since 1859 has increasingly supported the falsity of the theory of evolution. Once of many, many, many such bits of evidence was the discovery of REM sleep.

Not true at all. 100,000 working biologists presuppose evolution as foundational to understanding biology. I can’t think of a single creationist or “intelligent design” contribution to our scientific understanding of the world. Can you think of one?

Petrus

 

[wabrams]

Liberals favor evolution simply because the evidence favors evolution and they don’t generally approve of looking silly to folks around the globe as well as in the this country. You’re making this up on the fly. This is not a liberal/conservative argument. It is common sense backed by solid evidence versus total reliance on a book as biology, one written over the course of more than one thousand years and over 3 thousand years old. I don’t think we still even rely on Newton for everything anymore. Even Einstein was not right on everything. You cling to a religious belief that you need and there chuck science down the drain, all the while still driving a car, taking planes, using electricity, phones and computers. Science is fine as long as it does’nt invade your neat little theological world you have self-imposed around yoruself to feel safe.

In the end, science goes on, you can rant, and nobody cares.

This is what you fail to understand: as Christians, we very much believe in science. Only thing is, science doesn’t trump God; it helps us to understand how God made things. Science cannot disprove God since God is the author of science.

 

[drpmjhess]

This is what you fail to understand: as Christians, we very much believe in science. Only thing is, science doesn’t trump God; it helps us to understand how God made things. Science cannot disprove God since God is the author of science.

SpiritMeadow understands perfectly: of course science does not disprove God!

Petrus

 

[mapleoak]

Not true at all. 100,000 working biologists presuppose evolution as foundational to understanding biology. I can’t think of a single creationist or “intelligent design” contribution to our scientific understanding of the world. Can you think of one?

Petrus

No, I can’t think of a creationist or “ID” contribution. But I already mentioned a scientific discovery, one of many, which presents a very serious problem to the evolutionist theory: REM sleep and sleep paralysis.

 

[ricmat]

Links from Darwin to Eugenics have been debated a lot here. But there is one very destructive side effect of the science of evolution which points out the need to keep God in the equation (which of course most of us here do).

Without God, man becomes just another organism, the last link in a long list of very gradual changes (evolution) which occurred without purpose or meaning. Because of this, man is no better than lower animals, or even plants. So say people today (when God is not part of their thinking).

Lest you think I exaggerate, here is a story that tells just how crazy this can get.

mercatornet.com/articles/treat_your_goldfish_well_or_else/

and

wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/05/silent-scream-of-asparagus.html

Note: I am not blaming this on Charles Darwin. I am not saying that ID is the only alternative to God-less evolution. I’m just posting this as a sign of where ideas can be taken when adopted by the wrong crowd.

 

[drpmjhess]

Note: I am not blaming this on Charles Darwin. I am not saying that ID is the only alternative to God-less evolution. I’m just posting this as a sign of where ideas can be taken when adopted by the wrong crowd.

No, theistic evolution is the alternative to god-less evolution. Unlike ID, it respects the integrity of science.

 

[ricmat]

No, theistic evolution is the alternative to god-less evolution.

Certainly, theistic evolution is an alternative to God-less evolution. Are you saying that it can be the only one?

Unlike ID, it respects the integrity of science.

That’s quite an inflammatory statement. Since ID respects most of evolution (excepting only the “random” part of it), it also seems to be incorrect.

The Discovery Institute seems to be the standard bearers for ID at this point. These quotes are from the Discovery Institute web site:

What is the theory of intelligent design?

                                  The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. (see [What is intelligent design?](http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php)) 
             
                                                **Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?**

                                  It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.

Of course, there are others who use the name ID for nefarious purposes such as getting young earth creationism into schools.

Could you look through their web site www.discovery.org, and point out something specific which leads to your conclusion that they don’t “respect the integrity of Science.”?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This is what you fail to understand: as Christians, we very much believe in science. Only thing is, science doesn’t trump God; it helps us to understand how God made things. Science cannot disprove God since God is the author of science.

I don’t know what I fail to understand. Science does not trump God, never has and never will. Since God created all things, thus it would be a logical impossibility for science to do that. I have no clue what you are misunderstanding.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Links from Darwin to Eugenics have been debated a lot here. But there is one very destructive side effect of the science of evolution which points out the need to keep God in the equation (which of course most of us here do).

Without God, man becomes just another organism, the last link in a long list of very gradual changes (evolution) which occurred without purpose or meaning. Because of this, man is no better than lower animals, or even plants. So say people today (when God is not part of their thinking).

Lest you think I exaggerate, here is a story that tells just how crazy this can get.

mercatornet.com/articles/treat_your_goldfish_well_or_else/

and

wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/05/silent-scream-of-asparagus.html

Note: I am not blaming this on Charles Darwin. I am not saying that ID is the only alternative to God-less evolution. I’m just posting this as a sign of where ideas can be taken when adopted by the wrong crowd.

I guess I’m not sure why man becomes “just another organism”. If God, as I believe He did, created the laws that govern the universe, and set those laws in motion, as I believe he did, then isn’t all that is created good and worthwhile? Isn’t it just as God intended? I don’t know why that makes other life less valuable or Good. Perhaps its a very good argument for vegetarianism for all I know. I’m not one, to be sure, but I can look at the world and see all of it as Good and as God intended. No doubt life began other places and did not achieve sufficient sentience to seek the Creator. They are now dead worlds. Perhaps Mars is one of those. Still Mars is worthwhile I would argue, and not to be dismissed as unimportant. The vastness of the universe should yield, I would argue, reverence for all of it. otherwise, i doubt God would have created on such a massive scale.

Intelligent design is not necessary to avoid a Godless evolution. It is sufficient enough that God created laws that when put into play evolved the universe as it presently is. It makes God no less at all. Perhaps some humans want to feel more important, but that is not a good reason for simply implying that God had to be specially involved in humanity’s formation. In spirit, I am as God, I believe, the outer accompanying flesh and bone is simply the result of evolution over time in which I reside until reunited with God in perfect spirit.

 

[ricmat]

I guess I’m not sure why man becomes “just another organism”. If God, as I believe He did, created the laws that govern the universe, and set those laws in motion, as I believe he did, then isn’t all that is created good and worthwhile? Isn’t it just as God intended? I don’t know why that makes other life less valuable or Good.

“All that is created is worthwhile and good” is true of course. But so is the part about man created in the image and likeness of God (and mankind is therefore fundamentally different than anything else in creation). These are both religious concepts.

There are many folks (like the ones I linked to) that would have us believe that mankind is no different than lower forms of animals or plants - in other words, nothing special. Certainly nothing so grand as “made in the image and likeness of God.” This is how they justify reducing human population by 80% in order not to infringe on “plant dignity” etc.

Intelligent design is not necessary to avoid a Godless evolution. It is sufficient enough that God created laws that when put into play evolved the universe as it presently is. It makes God no less at all.

I agree that ID is not the only answer to Godless evolution.

And I agree that it is possible that elements of design may never be proven. And I agree that if God chose to make things look like they happened randomly, it makes God no less at all.

Perhaps some humans want to feel more important, but that is not a good reason for simply implying that God had to be specially involved in humanity’s formation. In spirit, I am as God, I believe, the outer accompanying flesh and bone is simply the result of evolution over time in which I reside until reunited with God in perfect spirit.

I agree that God could have created everything instantly, or over time using only “what appears to be random evolution”, or was involved in a more direct way in evolution (a sort of super selective breeder as one example).

But this isn’t a matter of some humans wanting to feel important. This is a matter of one of the most basic revelations of Genesis. We are here because God wants us (humans) to be here. The universe was created as a place for humans (ultimately) to live in. That’s the story of Genesis. Humans ARE different - in the image and likeness of God we have souls which live forever, we have intellect and free will, we have the ability to co-create new persons with God, and we have the capacity to love. No other creatures have all these things, including the angels. It is Catholic teaching that humans ARE special in creation.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

"

But this isn’t a matter of some humans wanting to feel important. This is a matter of one of the most basic revelations of Genesis. We are here because God wants us (humans) to be here. The universe was created as a place for humans (ultimately) to live in. That’s the story of Genesis. Humans ARE different - in the image and likeness of God we have souls which live forever, we have intellect and free will, we have the ability to co-create new persons with God, and we have the capacity to love. No other creatures have all these things, including the angels. It is Catholic teaching that humans ARE special in creation.

I think we don’t disagree a lot. I don’t know if God wanted us here or not. Here in the sense of this planet in particular. I believe that God created the universe because he wanted to experience it, and experience it through his creation. Whereever life evolves to a degree of sentience wherein the creature looks up and begins to wonder where he came from, God is there waiitng to be found.

Humans are different HERE. Other creatures may be different somewhere else on some other planet. In any case, the difference I see is the ability to contemplate one’s beginnings and thus God. I think it is that sentience that sets us apart. Other animals have intelligence, and free will to one degree or another. They have the capacity to procreate as well., and I would argue they have some capacity to love in the sense of forming relationships that are meaningful and painful when lost.

Genesis is a vision of how we came to be written by primitive people. It is beautiful and expresses our longing to be connected to that Creator. It expresses a primitive opinion of how that occurred. It was not meant to do anything else I suggest. Of course we are special, because we can commune with God directly. No other creation, so far as we know can or knows of God even. We are special indeed. But I submit, it is a result of natural evolution that it is we who are special and not whales or some other creature which happened to have the right mix and thus moved forward to first place.

Jesus suggested that God loved and cared for every bird. I think that is true. God loves his creation in its totality because it is all God.

 

[ricmat]

I think we don’t disagree a lot. I don’t know if God wanted us here or not. Here in the sense of this planet in particular. I believe that God created the universe because he wanted to experience it, and experience it through his creation. Whereever life evolves to a degree of sentience wherein the creature looks up and begins to wonder where he came from, God is there waiitng to be found.

Well, we’ll have to disagree here. I don’t think God needed (or wanted) to create the universe to experience it.

Humans are different HERE. Other creatures may be different somewhere else on some other planet. In any case, the difference I see is the ability to contemplate one’s beginnings and thus God. I think it is that sentience that sets us apart.

I’m not sure about sentience per-se. But if there are aliens, and they find the need to seek their creator, then perhaps they have souls as well.

Other animals have intelligence, and free will to one degree or another. They have the capacity to procreate as well., and I would argue they have some capacity to love in the sense of forming relationships that are meaningful and painful when lost.

The concept of free will only makes sense in the context of knowing the difference between good and evil, and (hopefully) choosing good.

And love is a choice, not just something that happens. Animals don’t choose to love us. And animals don’t know what is good and what is evil.

Genesis is a vision of how we came to be written by primitive people. It is beautiful and expresses our longing to be connected to that Creator. It expresses a primitive opinion of how that occurred. It was not meant to do anything else I suggest. Of course we are special, because we can commune with God directly. No other creation, so far as we know can or knows of God even. We are special indeed. But I submit, it is a result of natural evolution that it is we who are special and not whales or some other creature which happened to have the right mix and thus moved forward to first place.

Genesis was written by primitive people, but the Church tells us that it also includes some fundamental truths. Image and likeness of God…

We may be the result of natural selection and random mutation, or we may be the result of poof, here we are. Or something in between. But God knew it would happen, and the creation of mankind was his purpose and goal - not something that happened by accident.

Jesus suggested that God loved and cared for every bird. I think that is true. God loves his creation in its totality because it is all God.

Catholic teaching is that God is separate from his creation, and not part of it. We are not part of God. However, that is part of our reward in heaven, where our wills become one, and the prefigurement of earthly marriage in which two become one flesh occurs at the spiritual level.

 

[drpmjhess]

I think we don’t disagree a lot. I don’t know if God wanted us here or not. Here in the sense of this planet in particular. I believe that God created the universe because he wanted to experience it, and experience it through his creation. Whereever life evolves to a degree of sentience wherein the creature looks up and begins to wonder where he came from, God is there waiitng to be found.

Jesus suggested that God loved and cared for every bird. I think that is true. God loves his creation in its totality because it is all God.

A very nice post, SpiritMeadow. I don’t agree with the pantheistic implication of your last sentence, but the rest strikes me as theologically accurate. I particularly like your idea that the universe seems to be replete with possibilities for the evolution of life. Even with all the contingencies that beset planetary life – asteroid and cometary bombardment, gamma ray bursts, climate reversals – I am intrigued with the idea that if only on star of a hundred billion has a rocky, water-bearing planet orbiting in the habitable zone, there are nevertheless one hundred billion such planets out there.

I don’t know that I would say God “wanted to experience” creation, as it would be hard to psychoanalyze God, and I suspect that She/He has no needs. It seems theologically more appropriate to express it in terms of God’s boundless love overflowing into creative acts, so that existence might be shared.

Petrus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well, we’ll have to disagree here. I don’t think God needed (or wanted) to create the universe to experience it.

I agree he did not need to. I believe he wanted to experience life through his creation.

We may be the result of natural selection and random mutation, or we may be the result of poof, here we are. Or something in between. But God knew it would happen, and the creation of mankind was his purpose and goal - not something that happened by accident.

I’m more inclined to think God knew it would happen many places. Since God is outside time and space this becomes a silly argument is some sense. I tend to think God did not specifically effect any particular evolution, but allowed it to develop according to perfect laws, knowing that life was the end result.

Catholic teaching is that God is separate from his creation, and not part of it. We are not part of God. However, that is part of our reward in heaven, where our wills become one, and the prefigurement of earthly marriage in which two become one flesh occurs at the spiritual level.

I agree that God is not his creation. His creation is fashioned of himself however, IMO, since the universe is from God. I Believe that the spirit within us is God and thus he is part of his creation, the spark of all life. and perhaps nonlife too, I have no clue about that. When we attune tot he mind of God he acts through us–thus the good we do. when we are not attune to God, we do not good things. those God only witnesses. Such is my belief.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

A very nice post, SpiritMeadow. I don’t agree with the pantheistic implication of your last sentence, but the rest strikes me as theologically accurate. I particularly like your idea that the universe seems to be replete with possibilities for the evolution of life. Even with all the contingencies that beset planetary life – asteroid and cometary bombardment, gamma ray bursts, climate reversals – I am intrigued with the idea that if only on star of a hundred billion has a rocky, water-bearing planet orbiting in the habitable zone, there are nevertheless one hundred billion such planets out there.

I don’t know that I would say God “wanted to experience” creation, as it would be hard to psychoanalyze God, and I suspect that She/He has no needs. It seems theologically more appropriate to express it in terms of God’s boundless love overflowing into creative acts, so that existence might be shared.

Petrus

Yes, I hope I cleared up the former remark. I did not mean to suggest that all of creation is simply God, but that the spark of spirit within us is God, and I tend to think the spark of spirit in some sense is in all life.

 

[drpmjhess]

Yes, I hope I cleared up the former remark. I did not mean to suggest that all of creation is simply God, but that the spark of spirit within us is God, and I tend to think the spark of spirit in some sense is in all life.

Sorry – this thread slipped into the void in my schedule. I’m still not sure about “spark of spirit” – I’ll have to think more bout this. I think of God as wholly other from Creation, although intimately involved with it in drawing it out through evolutionary processes. There have of course been panentheistic strains in Christian thought.

Petrus