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.
.
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.