All of these attributes were demonstrated by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The world rejected Him. Is it any wonder it also rejects Down Syndrome children.
Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 08/28/2007 2:00:21 PM PDT by Sopater
Loving Our Children
For the past few years, I’ve been telling BreakPoint readers about our culture’s undeclared war on people with Down syndrome. Earlier this year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended that all pregnant women, regardless of age, undergo amniocentesis. Obviously that’s to put them under increasing pressure to abort the child if a genetic defect is detected.
I thought that I heard every possible argument for and against this barbarism, but I was wrong. Apparently, in addition to asking themselves “what would Jesus do?” women should ask themselves “what would Darwin advise?”
But Dr. Frank Boehm of Vanderbilt Medical Center has doubts about doctors’ ability to “adequately counsel patients” about having a child with Down syndrome. Properly counseling patients requires painting a balanced picture of life with such a child. Boehm points out that while there are “considerable challenges . . . there are also many positive [aspects] as well.” Boehm cites his own experience with his grandson, who has Down syndrome.
Through his grandson, Boehm has come to appreciate the often “unappreciated” “richness” in these children’s lives. He sees how their parents feel that their child offers “love, affection, happiness, laughter and joy” as well as teaching “compassion and acceptance.”
Boehm’s position is a welcome addition to the debate over the treatment of children with Down syndrome. But part of Boehm’s argument has me scratching my head. He ended his piece by saying that not telling patients about these “positive aspects of life” would constitute a failure to “understand the evolutionary process.”
I don’t get it. What does evolutionary theory have to tell us about the “positive aspects” of genetic defects? More importantly, what does it tell us about the human capacity for altruism and compassion—the very things Dr. Boehm is advocating? The answer is: nothing.
Dr. Boehm is a classic example of muddled thinking.
Darwin insisted that natural selection would “rigidly destroy” any variation—such as Down syndrome—that would hurt its possessor “in the struggle for life.” As much as we love kids with Down syndrome, it’s impossible to imagine how Down syndrome helps people in “the struggle for life.” Quite the contrary—it’s a variation that, if Darwin were right, should have been “rigidly destroyed” a long time ago.
And clearly evolutionary theory can’t explain the compassion and love that parents shower on their Down syndrome children. If evolutionary theory is right, then the time, resources and energy it takes to raise a child with special needs could be put to better uses—such as raising children who are more likely to strengthen the species.
The late philosopher David Stove, who was an atheist, called Darwinian explanations for altruism and compassion “confused” and a “slander” against man. They miss the obvious fact that man “is sharply distinguished from all other animals by being in fact hopelessly addicted to altruism.”
The “addiction” that Stove talked about is not the product of evolution. It is the product of being made in the image of God.
And what important information does Chuck Colson have to share with us about evolutionary theory? The answer is: nothing.
The ToE falls so woefully short of dealing with anything except the mechanics of how life allegedly progressed that it’s ridiculous that it should even be applied by doctors or scientists.
It’s this sort of behavior that reinforces the belief that Darwinism is a belief system and Darwinists have an agenda.
Just like evos constantly complain that theology has no place in science, it can be equally said here that the ToE has no place in dealing with moral, social, and ethical issues. Keep Darwinism and the TOE in the labs where it belongs.
Both are important in evolutionary theory as it is not "survival of the fittest" but the ability to pass on one's genes that is important. And, care of infants, children, and even grandchildren is a critical part of that.
That is where altruism and compassion come in: a grandmother can help her genes to be passed for additional generations on by helping care for her grandchildren, while a grandfather in a primitive society was a valuable store of information aiding the entire tribe.
Too any anti-evolutionists see "survival of the fittest" and probably deliberately misinterpret that phrase (never a part of Darwin's writings in the first place) in an attempt to damage the theory they hate so much.
Chuck Colson seems to be among those.
That's funny. Last time I checked, the mechanics of how life progressed, to use your wording, is all the ToE attempts to deal with.
Obviously, the theory of evolution is not a basis for morality. Very few people claim that it is.
It's nothing more than a theory about how life changes over time. To try to read anything else into it is to go beyond the limits of science.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
What makes Darwinism so destructive is NOT evolution, it's eugenics.
Pro-Life Ping
Downs Ping
**********
It may also be a ploy to reduce lawsuits. There may be financial incentives as well.
All of these attributes were demonstrated by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The world rejected Him. Is it any wonder it also rejects Down Syndrome children.
Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
World War 2 should have destroyed that idea.
Apparently, that war was not strong enough.
This is ridiculous. Evolution has nothing at all to do with the subject of Down Syndrome in the short frame of time implied in the article.
Chuck Colson apparently has an agenda against the theory of evolution. So apparently do many posters here.
Thanks.
My grandson with Downs is a doll. My son and daughter in law chose to have him be a part of their family. What a blessing he is!
|
Macroevolution does have a part to play in the subject of Down syndrome.
Creationism is religion start to finish. It does not follow any of the scientific method, so it is disingenuous to try to call creationism a scientific model. This is known to just about everyone, and has been determined so by both the US Supreme Court and more recently by the Dover decision.
One--Macroevolution and cosmic evolution--is the model of a philosophy glorifying death. Life advances by culling the weak and malformed, with the strong to survive and thrive in the wake. Development through conflict and predation. Less violent--since life is not directly involved--but still poignant, is stellar evolution, with the figurative birth of planets emerging from the supernova figurative deaths of stars providing heavier elements. Death paradoxically bringing forth life.
Emotional argument. No science content on which to comment.
The other--Creationism--is the model of a philosophy honoring life. Life was created perfect and there was no death. The carnage and death which supposedly fuels Macroevolution, would be an aberration to Creationism, things gone awry from the way they were supposed to have been. Life is not in feral, savage, dog-eat-dog advance. Life is in decaying decline due to the Fall. Similarly, the stars and planets were created formed. Their figurative deaths do not bring forth life, but destruction. Death does not bring forth life. Life brings forth life.
No science content on which to comment. Lots of scientifically-unsupported religious belief though.
Then, the topic of this thread, is the point that humans are considered to be another animal species, one to which natural selection applies. People with genetic deficiencies would be bad for the race if they reproduced, so--according to the logic--they should be culled, via sterilization, abortion, or other methods to remove them from the gene pool. If they were permitted to live, they would draw resources which could have otherwise gone to more closer-to-perfect members of the species, so abortion would be an economical way to go. Social Darwinism was on the rise before the atrocities of World War 2, with Belgians massacring Congolese because they figured that natural selection would kill off Africans anyway--they would just help the natural process along, with Australian aborigines being hunted down as if they were animals, murdered, and taxidermally stuffed and sent to European museums to be put on exhibit, with nations across the world sterilizing their retarded and others, along with the despicable acts which occurred during the war.
Lots of emotion but again no science content.
If Social Darwinism happened once, Social Darwinism can happen again.
That the world will not return to such savagery is not something that should be taken for granted.
Again, no science content.
You started out by claiming that creationism is a scientific model and then failed utterly to provide any substantiation for your claim.
For emotional argument, an A-. For logic, reason, and science content, an F.
In fact, most of your post is the subject of a Wiki article
Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin: argument to the consequences), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Source
If you want to argue in the realm of science, you will simply have to do better than that.
.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
He imparts the information that one Darwinist has to stand up in front of all the other Darwinists and yell "Stop" because they're all thinking that ruipping a small child limb from limb is OK idf the small child has a low IQ.
Doesn't explain the billions of times one human has risked his life for another who is a stranger. Not even the instinct to help can be explained by evolution, because in the days of the caveman saving a stranger might help a tribe that was going to wipe you, your kids, your grandpa and your genetic material off the face of the Earth.
Unlikely. The risk of complications from an amnio is higher than the risk of being sued for missing a genetic disease.
Why not? Hven't we been around long enough? If these changes can't happen that fast, how does one avoid the prospect of a bat being a rodent with useless limbs for a couple of million years or so?
Chuck Colson apparently has an agenda against the theory of evolution. So apparently do many posters here.
I think he hads an agenda against eugenics and the culture of death, which have historically proceeded from the acceptance of evolution as gospel (no pun intended.)
Doesn't explain the billions of times one human has risked his life for another who is a stranger. Not even the instinct to help can be explained by evolution, because in the days of the caveman saving a stranger might help a tribe that was going to wipe you, your kids, your grandpa and your genetic material off the face of the Earth.
Can you explain this near-universal trait of people trying to save even strangers?
Sure. It was a part of evolutionary development. It enhanced the survival of the group, or it would not have endured as a human trait.
Because this trait is nearly universal, you can't honestly bring in religion as a cause, as humans have a huge range of generally-contradictory religions (currently some 4,000+), and there are many millions of individuals who follow no religion.
Chuck how about, don't commit heinous crimes for which the President would be held culpable.
You didn't do a very good job of linking to my post, which is too bad. It was one of my better ones.
For those who haven't been able to find it, here is a direct link.
Thanks for pointing it out!
>>Darwin insisted that natural selection would “rigidly destroy” any variation—such as Down syndrome—that would hurt its possessor “in the struggle for life.” As much as we love kids with Down syndrome, it’s impossible to imagine how Down syndrome helps people in “the struggle for life.” Quite the contrary—it’s a variation that, if Darwin were right, should have been “rigidly destroyed” a long time ago.<<
This is serious topic but it sounds like Colson didn’t even do basic research before pontificating. Trisomy is an extra copy of a gene. If that gene is #21 then its called Downs syndrome.
But Colson says that if Darwin had been right there would be no downs syndrome. That implies he didn’t even look up what causes Downs Syndrome before going off.
Oh my...we can tell that it's evidence of evolution because it's there. Thanks for the just-so story, it was really convincing!
Actually, I can. Altruism is an expression of God's image, specifically the God who allowed Himself to be tortured to death so that others might have eternal life. One does not need to follow a particular religion to have that imprint of the divine.
Ah...yet another small person who wants to ignore (or is ignorant of) Colson’s 30+ years of work for the Gospel. Truly impressive.
1. Name me a Christian or other Creationist of any consequence who has proposed that we change over to a theocracy.
2. Failing that, name me a Christian or other Creationist of any consequence who has proposed that we ban the lines of scientific inquiry you've named, or anything related to them. (Note that stuff like banning cloning doesn't count, because that has nothing to do with opposing science, but is totally an ethical concern.)
3. If you can even provide an example that qualifies for item 1 and/or 2, provide evidence that any significant number of Christians, Creationists or voters of any stripe supported them or took them seriously.
4. Are you supporting the idea that a main goal of scientists should be to eliminate religion?
It's been almost nine months and I'm still waiting for you to provide the Creationist version of Mein Kampf you say we're all going by. Where is it?
Evolution is a cult of the devil's propagation. (400 posted on 01/14/2006 8:15:14 PM PST by Baraonda)And you want evidence that creationists are hoping and planning for a theocracy? Try reading the Wedge Strategy.They (evolutionists) are of their father the devil. (406 posted on 01/14/2006 8:30:24 PM PST by Baraonda)
As to why you have based your entire pathetic, souless, anti-religious, anti-American life on biological and social Darwinism is beyond me. (595 posted on 01/25/2006 12:30:26 PM PST by Doc Savage)
We need to get Geraldo Riveria on here to defend scientists. He is able to defend illegal immigrants with some success, but can he defend scientists on this BBS? 5 posted on 08/21/2007 12:20:03 PM PDT by RightWhale
What do you think they mean when they write:
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.Do you think that means science as usual? Or do they have some other plans in mind when they "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview" (i.e., overthrow science).
We already see many posters on this website stating that they are all for science, but evolution is just not science. So it is clear that if the theocrats gain enough influence evolution is GONE! What field will be next?
That is why I wrote the post to which you so proudly, if inaccurately linked, upthread. For those who have not seen it, here are some highlights:
Just think of all the sciences that would be "replaced" under such a system (referring to "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"):
- Geology--those fools can't get the age of the Grand Canyon right. GONE!
- Archaeology--can't find any evidence of a global flood. GONE!
- Astronomy--that big bang stuff, and all those really old ages. GONE!
- Genetics--all those similarities to chimps, and common descent. GONE!
- Egyptology--those Egyptians didn't notice the global flood. GONE!
- Planetary sciences--all those annoying facts we can't explain away. GONE!
- Radiometric dating--those fools can't get the dating right either. GONE!
- Biology--they started that evilution stuff and figured out how the eye really developed. GONE!
- Paleontology--millions of inconvenient fossils that are all fakes. GONE!
- Physics--that pesky 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. GONE!
- Linguistics--can't get the development of languages right. It was Babel what done it! GONE!
Without Colson's Machiavellian machinations we would not have been plaged by Carter or Clinton (both) and the opposition Presidents might have been conservatives such as Sam Nunn, Larry McDonald, Scoop Jackson or Billy Tauzin.
I haven't forgiven Hanoi Jane either!
So, let's review:
We match up Colson's 30+ year record of real activity that ministers to the needy and promotes the Gospel against your speculation that the Dems would have been sane if only it wasn't for Watergate.
Are you really trying to get me to buy that load of crap?
I haven't forgiven Hanoi Jane either!
Are you actually comparing Colson to some psycho traitor who obviously didn't mean her apology?
What do you think they mean when they write: Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
I think they mean that design theory has the potential to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview. You see the reason you read that and run around like Mermaid Man yelling "EVILEVILEVIL" is because you're a religionist who worships the materialistic worldview. Otherwise you could get a clue and realize that OF COURSE people who accept ID as viable would expect it to whomp evolutionism.
Now, let's review...here's your evidence that Christians and/or Creationists are planning to establish a theocracy in the United States:
4 posts on FR
A strategy that has nothing to do with government
Your own evidence-free list of stuff that will "surely" be banned if Creationists (chortle!) "gain power."
So...paltry evidence, and none of it actually related to what you were claiming to prove. Yep, that's about what I expected. The Creationist Mein Kampf remains missing.
Well, since you've failed miserably to answer questions 1 through 3, let's see if you can man up and provide an honest answer to #4:
4. Are you supporting the idea that a main goal of scientists should be to eliminate religion?
I expect you'll run for the tall grass, but be a sport and give it a try, huh?
Maybe you should tell your fellow evos that. They seem to think it can explain compassion and alturism.
Read the thread.
In another vein, then...
the amnio can be a risk, especially to a high risk pregnancy. My 21 refused the amnio. She told them she didn't care if the baby was Downs or not, she was not going to abort it and that the amnio could cause issues as well. They were dumbfounded, and they then refused her the ability to receive the genetic counseling because she refused the amnio. She wanted the genetic counseling for the heart issues, etc... Funny medical professionals, eh?!
If I get started on the Darwin / evolution stuff, I may never get to bed. I will say that it isn't close to being dead. but, I wonder, how is it with this theory that they can claim it to be fact, yet it isn't worthy of "law" scientifically? Isn't that a political spin on verbage?! It is an unproven theory...after all, I have not seen a monkey turn into a man yet, and if this is evolution it should still be continuing today. Anyone seen anyone that looks like they were in the process? That is anyone outside of the Geico ad guys?!
Blessings on your evening, all!
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This is the kind of government that belief in God can produce. Is that what they're afraid of?
The atheists, agnostics, and other who reject God so often claim that they are moral and that good can exist without religion, but they are living in a country that was founded on those ethics and are still reaping the fruit of that belief system they reject. The only reason things are still tolerable is because not enough time has passed to reap the fruits of godlessness and moral relativity .
You have made several mistakes in your definitions. Please take a look at the following definitions, which reflect the way these terms are generally used in science (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
[Last revised 9/26/06]
Here is another link that might be of use: PatrickHenry's Un-Missing Links.
I refused an amino for the exact same reason and I told them the same thing. It’s not worth the risk and abortion is not an option anyway. The nurse practitioner (the OBs wife) looked me in the eye and said, “I wish more people felt that way.”
They never gave me a bit of trouble about it either.
That refers to inherited traits. People rarely inherit Down Syndrome because one of its effects is severely reduced fertility. Like it or not, people will continue to be born with Down Syndrome even if it is never inherited at all (which was essentially the case in Darwin's time).
And clearly evolutionary theory can’t explain the compassion and love that parents shower on their Down syndrome children.
In the first place, it is an enormous error to identify the love of family with altruism. Secondly, the "compassion and love" to which Mr. Colson refers are possible only because of our prosperity; in cultures which are on the edge of starvation anyway, things are surely quite different.
Ping!
Some of the secular humanist/moral relativist crowd seem to think that any mention of Darwin’s name involves evolution. However, I have long believed that the danger of Darwinism (as a distinct mindset from evolutionism) has been in what his followers did.
Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, actually coined the term eugenics and was the movements founder. On Galton’s death, Charles Darwin’s son, Leonard took over leadership of them movement. What the Darwinists espoused in eugenics was studied and put into action by such people as Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler. The Darwinists at their core are socialists and their repugnant theories resulted in well over 100 MILLION deaths in the 20th Century.
Feel free to argue the various merits of creationism, evolution and intelligent design all you want. I generally avoid those debates, because nobody is going to change their minds. However, the results of Darwinism cannot be debated. And to say that Charles Darwin bears no responsibility for the bloodshed eugenics movement is as intellectually hollow as saying that Karl Marx bears no responsibility for the bloodshed of communism.
My aunt had Downs. My mother always said people with Downs are angels on earth. They are the sweetest people.
Except, of course, Michael Behe, who accepts common descent. Come to think of it, Mr. Behe appears to accept everything about the theory of evolution other than the random nature of molecular mutation, which he suggests is a process guided by the intelligent designer. Not much "whomping" of evolution in that view.
Do a search on “Ernest Haeckel” and eugenics. The bond between Darwinism and eugenics is tighter than most people think. Haeckel is the guy who drew the fake embroyo homology diagrams that still find their way into textbooks as gospel, even today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
