Posted on 11/28/2012 8:41:11 PM PST by Bigtigermike
Full Title: Now sick babies go on death pathway: Doctor's haunting testimony reveals how children are put on end-of-life plan
Sick children are being discharged from NHS hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death pathways’.Until now, end of life regime the Liverpool Care Pathway was thought to have involved only elderly and terminally-ill adults.
But the Mail can reveal the practice of withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies.
One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.
Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a baby becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’.
The investigation, which will include child patients, will look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced doctors’ decisions.
Medical critics of the LCP insist it is impossible to say when a patient will die and as a result the LCP death becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They say it is a form of euthanasia, used to clear hospital beds and save the NHS money.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Surely you did not read in any of my remarks that Demicritis, Epicurus, or the Roman poet/philosopher and devote of Epicurus Lucretius as the progenitors of Darwinism. These philosophers did not notice a process, as you described. The atomist view was born from Demicritus, then Epicurus, and was profoundly described in Lucretius"s great poem De rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things) as a philosophical view they used to explain their perception of the world. It was, and to this day remains a theory. Chemistry and biology as formal studies had not yet been born. I will discuss that with you if you wish. My reference to the evils of infanticide, abortion, and involuntary euthanasia did not begin to cover all evils. That is and entire treatise. If you read what I said you will note that the euthanasia movement in Europe began after 1859's publication of Darwins book. It, along with Malthus and Neitzche created the foundational worldview which Haeckel seized upon to promulgate in the law, in society, and in education the acceptance (at first), then the advancement, and finally the proliferation of infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia. I will not rewrite my statement quoting Ernst Haeckel. You can go back and reread it if you wish.
In a scientific context, “survival of the fittest” means only that an organism that survives can reproduce. Any sort of “master race” consideration has nothing to do with survival of the fittest, and everything to do with a human idea of what the ideal human is. In the evolutionary sense, people who kill off babies for selfish reasons are working against survival of the fittest. You don’t leave a maximum of offspring when you kill them all. You also enhance your own survival (and thus your fitness) by assisting others to survive. Altruism is a survival trait; selfishness is not.
I will simply quote Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf(1924(pp.239-240, "If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.
But such a preservation goes hand-in-glove with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure. He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist."
Hitler, like other Darwinists, illegitimately personifies nature by attributing will to it (nature does not 'wish'). The main point is that there are those who deserve life and those who do not deserve life. Euthanasia, genocide, eugenics, involuntary termination of life all were his tools, and as he said himself, were a derivitive of survival of the fittest. Ideas have consequences.
You say those who kill babies "for selfish reasons" are working against survival of the fittest. This comment, of course, is self-serving nonsense. The strong, in your world deserve to live, the weak deserve to die. To hasten their death means more more more nutrients, more environment, more resources for the deserving. This should expiate your concerns as a Darwinist.
selfish reasons are working against survival of the fittest. You don’t leave a maximum of offspring when you kill them all. You also enhance your own survival (and thus your fitness) by assisting others to survive. Altruism is a survival trait; selfishness is not.
This paragraph is interesting. Here you as a Darwinist propound that the weak should survive to attain to maximal numbers of offspring. But Darwin said the weak do not survive. Then you swerve into what is impossible in a Darwinian materialist universe...PURPOSE...altruism. You claim altruism is a survival trait. So, the person who tends to the terminally ill infant, attention which will never attain to biologcal success as Darwinist describe (to reproduce) is a survival trait. Like the man attending a woman who was just mauled by Smilodon (saber tooth tiger) out of altruism, and who puts his life in jeopardy, has attained a survival skill when the big cat kills him. I am afraid you need to rethink your position on this entire paragraph if you wish to be a consistent Darwinist.
It is evil people who decide that they should have control over who lives and who dies.How in a Darwinist, materialist universe does evil enter into world. Evil people, evils of society....in a materialist universe these abstract, invarient, entities do not exist. Conditions are simply conditions as they are. There is no purpose in that universe. It is only in the theistic universe that we can come to understand things like evil. Of course you do know what evil is because knowledge of evil is part of our nature...our synderesis, if you will. I feel sure you do not acknowlege the Moral Law and Lawgiver. We can leave that for another time.
I am intrigued by two of your statements. I will juxtapose the two statements.
Post #3 you say;
I've read the entire AVMA on euthanizing animals. Inhuman methods are not authorized, the goal is for the animal to die without suffering. Apparently it does't matter if human beings suffer. What kind of society is it that has more concern for animals than for humans.
Your second statement in this post; It is evil people who decide that they should have control over who lives and who dies.
In the first you seem to say that animals are killed humanly and people are not killed humanly (society cares more for animals than people). Is this to say you desire people be killed humanly? That seems to be what you are saying. If so, would it be you who desire control over others lives.
Even if they blabber about a master race or whatever, they aren’t working within any scientific context. They are acting according to their own evil nature. Unfortunately, sociopathy is one of those anti-survival traits that, for some reason, has not yet eliminated itself from the gene pool....."blabber about a master race"...."aren't working in any scientific context"...Well you might take some time to look at Ernst Haeckels writings. He was the preemeninent biologist of his day, as I said in my first post to you. I suppose you overlooked that. "Master Race"....I do not believe those words were uttered by me. And this one I really like by someone as humane as yourself...."Unfortunately, sociopathy is one of those anti-survival traits that, for some reason, has not yet eliminated itself from the gene pool".
Sociopath....gee, that seems to be a diagnosis...and even without examining the patient. And this is an especially nice touch....."eliminated from the gene-pool". That would be referencing those who disagree with your worldview. Some things never change.
Agreed, the progression is always the same, because the ideologies that birth these abominations are all rooted in denying God, and they all thereby deny the only claim that man has to rights. Whether they call it Darwinism, Marxism, Humanism, Rationalism, or what have you, eventually, if they have made the denial of God a fundamental of their beliefs, then they will eventually deny the special nature of man, and any special rights that man has tried to assert for himself, up to the right to life itself.
Christ truly cut to the heart of the matter. There are only two ways in this world, the way towards God, which leads to life, and the other way, away from God, which leads always to death.
“The Left wants to eliminate us because we question their insanity.”
Yes, quite true. It’s a symptom of their guilty consciences, because the guilty, unless they are true sociopaths, find it hard to live with themselves when presented with reminders of their guilt. This is why non-psychopathic murderers will usually cover the faces of their victims, because they can’t stand to have them looking at them. They also will not look at photos of the victims for more than the briefest moment, and they usually cannot bring themselves to even say the names of their victims either.
The leftists who are not fully sociopathic still have a conscience that assails them when they are presented with evidence of their sins against the rest of us. That’s why they display some similar avoidance behaviors that the aforementioned criminals do. They dehumanize conservatives, dismissing us all as crazy, stupid, or brainwashed. They flee from even hearing anything that we have to say, evidenced by their campaigns to drive Rush Limbaugh from the airwaves, or trying to get Fox News turned off in any public place. They insulate themselves in little bubble communities, and get jobs in little bubble industries, and send their children to little bubble schools, where they will never have to encounter us.
So yes, I do believe, if they could get rid of us before we were even born, they would gladly do that as well.
“The new ones look flabby in their cheap suits with their bad skin and bad hair.”
That’s what happens, I guess, when you mix up Communism and Fascism, to get your new “Third Way” whateverism. They still want to tell everyone else what to do, but they don’t want to abide by anyone else telling them what to do!
Premature and seriously ill infants are being murdered "all over the United States"? I have a feeling that IF this is happening that it is being done by the same leftists that promote the murder of innocents before they are born -this, in the same places (Leftist strongholds that overwhelmingly voted for the Kenyan Marxist).
Their 'savior' is murdering their posterity!
Boomers will be like Germany's Jewa. "It just can't happen here".
I look at nursing homes and assisted living homes a lot in my business. There is a term of art in financing these called "turnover". Though not discussed with lay people, average turnover in many of these places runs about 50-60%. It's a factor in the profitability model.
The only hope for any survival will be for Boomers to re-invent the family model whether related by blood or not in order to pool resources in a communal arrangement.
Won't be able to make it on one's own.
“It happens in Neonatal Units all over the United States, Downs Syndrome babies are the most frequent target.”
Not in 25 years of neonatal respritory care at my ex-wife’s hospital, nor in the wider neonatal community in my area.
Can you substantiate your statement? I am curious where your information comes from.
1. There is no correlation between human brutality and ANY kind of scientific advancement. If, as you claim, the fact that Darwin gave an explanation to a phenomenon that has been observed for millenia is the cause of pogroms, then I would expect to see that humanity has lived at peace without massacres of any sort up until the 1800s. History, however, tells me that human brutality has always been a feature of human existence.
2. All science is described in terms of theories. You cannot dismiss a field of science because it’s “only” a theory. A scientific theory is a framework which ties together all known facts and gives the basis on which to formulate (testable) hypotheses.
3. I don’t care how Adolf Hitler or any other sociopath warps science for their own means. There is no shortage of people who will warp any subject to advance an agenda; the fact that they do that does not reflect a flaw in the subject.
4. I am not a “Darwinist.” Science is not a religion; no one worships Darwin. However, when you try to discredit science by calling it a religion, you betray how you really feel about religion. If you feel something is contemptible, you naturally compare it to something you consider contemptible.
5. You clearly still do not understand what “survival of the fittest” means. Fit does not refer to any standard—it means one thing only, and that is surviving and successfully reproducing. Human considerations of whether traits are desirable or not has nothing to do with it. This should be pretty much a no-brainer. Organisms that reproduce preserve their genes; organisms that don’t reproduce take their genes to the grave. As for people who kill their babies for selfish reasons—clearly, they are not fit in terms of survival because they are removing their own genes from the gene pool.
6. You seem to have difficulty in reading anything I write without inferring all manner of things which I did not write. Most of your post contains material that has little, if anything, to do with any of my comments. If you want to comment on what I wrote, restrict your comments only to those that are directly relevant to what I wrote, and don’t add into it tons of irrelevancies that, honestly, are tedious to read.
Fundamentally there is one major reason why evolution is a hot button topic: EDUCATION!
Education can NOT be religiously neutral in content or consequences. And...The origin the universe, the earth, and the appearance of life upon it absolutely is NOT NOT NOT religiously neutral in content or consequences no matter how it is taught.
So...If there were complete separation of school and state and education was not compulsory funded or attendance required by state compulsion the entire controversy swirling around evolution would evaporate like dew on a hot summer's day.
If government were completely out of the education business, and government ended its religious shaping of the next generation of voters, the **only** people who would be concerned about evolution theories would be an **HANDFUL** of scientists directly studying and researching in the field. Other scientists, even biologists, have little interest in the field and evolution has NO bearing whatsoever on their work. As for the rest of work done in the U.S., evolution is about as important as the news events from the dark side of the MOON!
Evolutionists are BULLIES and are among the strongest defenders of government owned and run, compulsory-use. compulsory-funded, socialist-funded, single-payer schooling and the LEAST likely to promote the idea of school choice. What backs all that government compulsion? GUNS! Police and court action backed by the threat of government bullets!
In my homeschool we accepted evolution as a likely valid theory. Two of my children graduated with B.S. in mathematics at the age of 18, The older of these two earned a masters in mathematics at the age of 20. The amount of time spent in their college curriculum on evolution was exactly ZERO minutes! My oldest has a masters in accounting. For him the amount of time spent on evolution was again ZERO!
Evidently...Mathematicians and accountants don't give a twit about evolution and neither does 99.9999999999999% of the scientific and working world.
The amount of time my daughter spent on evolution in her physics degree = zero.
If an understanding of the ToE is required for a degree program, let them learn it in college. Certainly any student intelligent enough to make it to college is intelligent enough to understand it at that level without the *prep* work of introducing it in high school.
Evolutionists are BULLIES and are among the strongest defenders of government owned and run, compulsory-use. compulsory-funded, socialist-funded, single-payer schooling and the LEAST likely to promote the idea of school choice.
And I have seen that first hand over the years of crevo debates.
And they demand the exclusivity of their creation account and yet deny it to creationism or any other creation account with the inane argument that if we teach creationism, we are obligated to teach ALL creation accounts, not seeing the hypocrisy of their own position of exempting themselves.
An understanding of evolution is not required for an understanding of biology, even genetics.
It's not that evolution supports them, as has been erroneously claimed, but rather the sciences are required to try to support evolution.
The ToE is not a science but rather a philosophical position even if it does attempt to use science to support it.
I was going to say that I have come to the conclusion that shutting down the public education system would have little to no effect on this country, but I take that back. It would.
Kids would actually get educated instead of indoctrinated.
You see, here, again, you did not read what I wrote. If you look at my post #51 to you, I said, QUOTE, "There is a huge body of literature on the effect of the Darwinian ethic and how it was applied during the period leading up to WWII in the Rhineland, Nazism in full pearl, influenced (not caused) scientist, doctors politicians, educators and sociologists to give us 14 million dead innocents. You see, you said I claim that Darwinism caused pogroms. As you see, I made no such claim. You simply created a straw man, so you could attempt to strike it down. In you zeal you apply ambiguity in your statement which is always the friend of conflation and deceit.
Additionally you say "There is no correlation between human brutality and ANY kind of scientific advancement."....Here you make a broad, sweeping statement that is perhaps illconsidered. The science obtained from the Manhattan Project might be considered. The science of accellerants in explosives might be considered otherwise. The science of biological warfare or chemical warfare (especially as applied in WWI) seems to offer a history which different from your claim. There is no paucity of examples. Consider the organic chemistry science in development of the poison used to kill in the Nazi death camps. I am afraid your comment is without foundtion. But if it makes you feel good to avert your eyes from the truth of these matters, hey, this is America and that is your right.
2. All science is described in terms of theories. You cannot dismiss a field of science because it’s “only” a theory. A scientific theory is a framework which ties together all known facts and gives the basis on which to formulate (testable) hypotheses.
ALL science is described in terms of theories? Well, let us see. John Dwyer, in College Physics says, "science is concerned with the material world of reality in terms of basic general principles involving observation, intuition, experimentation, debate and reformulation." William Keaton in Biological Science says, "Science is concerned with the material universe, seeking to discover facts about it and to fit those facts into conceptual schemes, called theories or laws, that will clarify the relations among them. Science must therefore begin with observations of objects or events in the physical universe." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, "Knowledge covering geral truths or the operations of general laws esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method. Such knowlege concerned swith the physical sworld and its phenomenon."
None of these seem completely adequet to explain science explicitly in terms of theories. Much of what we think of as science involves observation (not theory), experimentation with interpretation, and some presume a covering law model where there is no covering law. For example science describe by facts (the copper wire expanded when heated) by subsuming them under a general law ( all metals expand when heated). But this is wrong. Keatons definition seems inadequate. Investigating the material universe is not the limits of science. In Biology, psychology, anthropology, paleontology, and sociology, all investigate living things , their remains, their relationships, and their artifacts,...but it is not clear at all that these investigations are limited to material phsicality. I won't go on, but you understand what my point is. I will also agree that theories are important in science and its investigation, but it is not exclusive, as you use the term ALL. 3. I don’t care how Adolf Hitler or any other sociopath warps science for their own means. There is no shortage of people who will warp any subject to advance an agenda; the fact that they do that does not reflect a flaw in the subject.
I can see that you don't care.
4. I am not a “Darwinist.” Science is not a religion; no one worships Darwin. However, when you try to discredit science by calling it a religion, you betray how you really feel about religion. If you feel something is contemptible, you naturally compare it to something you consider contemptible.
I am looking at a book entitled "Darwinism Science or Philosophhy It is contributed to by such materialist naturalists including MichaEL Ruse, Leslie Johnson, K.John Morrow, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, and many others. They all seem to have a grasp on the term Darwinist, just as most of us understand the meaning of Churchillian, Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian, Clintonian, Madisonian, and many other peoples names which have entered the lexicon to carry a meaning associated with a body of thought or work which they had engaged in. To label the term "Darwinian" as religion is to fail, willfully fail, to understand its meaning. Is it easier to say Darwinian, neoDarwinan, or "the theory of law of survial of the fittest" is an attempt to evade and prevaricate regarding understanding of the term. When you do this you major on the minors and avoid the discussion, which is your goal. Anyones who reads this conversation knows this.
As to me trying to 'discredit' science, well, I spent 17 years in college and post graduate work in science and spent the next 30+ years trying to apply what I learned in science. I am not desirous of discrediting what I felt was my life's calling.
You say I do not understand the meaning of "survival of the fittest". That is a remarkable statement for someone who said under Darwins theory, the weak survive as a result of "altruism".
6. You seem to have difficulty in reading anything I write without inferring all manner of things which I did not write. Most of your post contains material that has little, if anything, to do with any of my comments. If you want to comment on what I wrote, restrict your comments only to those that are directly relevant to what I wrote, and don’t add into it tons of irrelevancies that, honestly, are tedious to read.
My responses to your writing do seem to contain difficulties for your comprehesion. Thank you for allowing me to comment on your remarks, and thank you for demarcating what you will allow in my comments. I do observe that you find my statements tedious. Specificity is always at odds with ambiguity, such as yours. That is why I try to be specific, so you will know what I mean to say. Broadbrush generalities, such as yours are not supportive of what some call 'the scientific method'.
Now, all of that said, I have not meant to pick on you. My original comment to you, post # 51, was more meant to apply to Boogieman than you. I included you because I insinuated myself, uninvited, into your conversation with him. I did not mean to be rude to you or Boogieman. I do hope you have a nice Christmas and holiday. I mean that. I have learned from you. For that I thank you.
I will leave you with this last question. It is not meant to titilate or trick anyone, but it is meant to have any reader of this question of deeply consider the quesiton.
Do you know it is true that Darwinism (the theory of the survival of the fittest) accounts for the development of life on this planet?
You see, here, again, you did not read what I wrote. If you look at my post #51 to you, I said, QUOTE, "There is a huge body of literature on the effect of the Darwinian ethic and how it was applied during the period leading up to WWII in the Rhineland, Nazism in full pearl, influenced (not caused) scientist, doctors politicians, educators and sociologists to give us 14 million dead innocents. You see, you said I claim that Darwinism caused pogroms. As you see, I made no such claim. You simply created a straw man, so you could attempt to strike it down. In you zeal you apply ambiguity in your statement which is always the friend of conflation and deceit.
Additionally you say "There is no correlation between human brutality and ANY kind of scientific advancement."....Here you make a broad, sweeping statement that is perhaps illconsidered. The science obtained from the Manhattan Project might be considered. The science of accellerants in explosives might be considered otherwise. The science of biological warfare or chemical warfare (especially as applied in WWI) seems to offer a history which different from your claim. There is no paucity of examples. Consider the organic chemistry science in development of the poison used to kill in the Nazi death camps. I am afraid your comment is without foundtion. But if it makes you feel good to avert your eyes from the truth of these matters, hey, this is America and that is your right.
2. All science is described in terms of theories. You cannot dismiss a field of science because it’s “only” a theory. A scientific theory is a framework which ties together all known facts and gives the basis on which to formulate (testable) hypotheses.
ALL science is described in terms of theories? Well, let us see. John Dwyer, in College Physics says, "science is concerned with the material world of reality in terms of basic general principles involving observation, intuition, experimentation, debate and reformulation." William Keaton in Biological Science says, "Science is concerned with the material universe, seeking to discover facts about it and to fit those facts into conceptual schemes, called theories or laws, that will clarify the relations among them. Science must therefore begin with observations of objects or events in the physical universe." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, "Knowledge covering geral truths or the operations of general laws esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method. Such knowlege concerned swith the physical sworld and its phenomenon."
None of these seem completely adequet to explain science explicitly in terms of theories. Much of what we think of as science involves observation (not theory), experimentation with interpretation, and some presume a covering law model where there is no covering law. For example science describe by facts (the copper wire expanded when heated) by subsuming them under a general law ( all metals expand when heated). But this is wrong. Keatons definition seems inadequate. Investigating the material universe is not the limits of science. In Biology, psychology, anthropology, paleontology, and sociology, all investigate living things , their remains, their relationships, and their artifacts,...but it is not clear at all that these investigations are limited to material phsicality. I won't go on, but you understand what my point is. I will also agree that theories are important in science and its investigation, but it is not exclusive, as you use the term ALL. 3. I don’t care how Adolf Hitler or any other sociopath warps science for their own means. There is no shortage of people who will warp any subject to advance an agenda; the fact that they do that does not reflect a flaw in the subject.
I can see that you don't care.
4. I am not a “Darwinist.” Science is not a religion; no one worships Darwin. However, when you try to discredit science by calling it a religion, you betray how you really feel about religion. If you feel something is contemptible, you naturally compare it to something you consider contemptible.
I am looking at a book entitled "Darwinism Science or Philosophhy It is contributed to by such materialist naturalists including MichaEL Ruse, Leslie Johnson, K.John Morrow, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, and many others. They all seem to have a grasp on the term Darwinist, just as most of us understand the meaning of Churchillian, Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian, Clintonian, Madisonian, and many other peoples names which have entered the lexicon to carry a meaning associated with a body of thought or work which they had engaged in. To label the term "Darwinian" as religion is to fail, willfully fail, to understand its meaning. Is it easier to say Darwinian, neoDarwinan, or "the theory of law of survial of the fittest" is an attempt to evade and prevaricate regarding understanding of the term. When you do this you major on the minors and avoid the discussion, which is your goal. Anyones who reads this conversation knows this.
As to me trying to 'discredit' science, well, I spent 17 years in college and post graduate work in science and spent the next 30+ years trying to apply what I learned in science. I am not desirous of discrediting what I felt was my life's calling.
You say I do not understand the meaning of "survival of the fittest". That is a remarkable statement for someone who said under Darwins theory, the weak survive as a result of "altruism".
6. You seem to have difficulty in reading anything I write without inferring all manner of things which I did not write. Most of your post contains material that has little, if anything, to do with any of my comments. If you want to comment on what I wrote, restrict your comments only to those that are directly relevant to what I wrote, and don’t add into it tons of irrelevancies that, honestly, are tedious to read.
My responses to your writing do seem to contain difficulties for your comprehesion. Thank you for allowing me to comment on your remarks, and thank you for demarcating what you will allow in my comments. I do observe that you find my statements tedious. Specificity is always at odds with ambiguity, such as yours. That is why I try to be specific, so you will know what I mean to say. Broadbrush generalities, such as yours, are not supportive of what some call 'the scientific method'.
Now, all of that said, I have not meant to pick on you. My original comment to you, post # 51, was more meant to apply to Boogieman than you. I included you because I insinuated myself, uninvited, into your conversation with him. I did not mean to be rude to you or Boogieman. I do hope you have a nice Christmas and holiday. I mean that. I have learned from you. For that I thank you.
I will leave you with this last question. It is not meant to titilate or trick anyone, but it is meant to have any reader of this question of deeply consider the quesiton.
Do you know it is true that Darwinism (the theory of the survival of the fittest) accounts for the development of life on this planet?
Unless the subject is specifically religion related, I see no reason religion should be discussed in any class. We don't, for example, discuss integral calculus in English class, or the declension of Latin nouns in intermediate band class. And the only reason you would see something religious about the topics of biology/geology/astrophysics etc., is because you are injecting a religious component to those subjects where none exists.
So...If there were complete separation of school and state and education was not compulsory funded or attendance required by state compulsion the entire controversy swirling around evolution would evaporate like dew on a hot summer's day.
The controversy will evaporate only when certain people accept the fact that the Bible is not, in any way, a scientific document. Most of the Biblical descriptions of the world (flat earth, geocentricity) are understood to be inaccurate; for some reason, some people still want to believe that one small metaphor near the beginning of the Bible is an exact account. I actually think that most of the literal biblical creation movement is driven by charlatans who make money by making people doubt their religion, and convincing them that the process of evolution is why they doubt (oh, and that buying their books will relieve that doubt).
If government were completely out of the education business, and government ended its religious shaping of the next generation of voters, the **only** people who would be concerned about evolution theories would be an **HANDFUL** of scientists directly studying and researching in the field. Other scientists, even biologists, have little interest in the field and evolution has NO bearing whatsoever on their work. As for the rest of work done in the U.S., evolution is about as important as the news events from the dark side of the MOON!
Since evolutionary theory provides the framework for biology, it is nearly impossible to function as a life scientist without understanding it or using it. The thousands of life scientists working in the US and thousands more in the rest of the world hardly make up a "handful" of scientists.
As for your children becoming mathematicians and not needing or using evolutionary theory, that is neither surprising nor relevant. Unless they selected a career connected to life sciences, why would they apply evolutionary theory to their work?
I should mention that evolution is not some obscure subject that few know about and has no relevance to everyday life; it actually has an impact on all of our lives. Understanding evolutionary pressures on microorganisms is crucial to our fight against infectious disease, which still kills countless millions of people every year. Microorganisms evolve so quickly that we can barely stay ahead of them.
Finally, I don't even know why anyone brought up evolution in this thread. The article opening the thread is about the British NHS, where babies who would be placed in the NICU here are instead being neglected to death. The relevant topics of discussion are socialized medicine and attitudes towards human life, not evolution.
Hey! I respect your godless religious worldview with regard to education as applied your children. And...If all education were privately delivered, your religious worldview would in no way rub or cause irritation to me.
I do NOT respect those who would use the threat of police and court action to force taxpayers to pay for your godless religious worldview (as applied to education ) or to impose it on children held captive by the government.
If education was privatized you could send your kids to schools that supported your religious philosophy that education should be godless in its worldview. The consequences and content of this type of education is NOT religiously neutral
Others could send their kids to private schools that do support, uphold, and integrate their specific religious worldview into their God-centered classes. The content and consequences of this education are NOT religiously neutral.
If I have time, I will address the other points of your post, but given your very fist sentence I feel I would be wasting my time trying to break through an extremely intolerant and close-minded wall.
Your very first sentence, again confirms my anecdotal observation, that evolutionist are BULLIES.
The only people who give a twit about macro evolution are the BULLIES who defend compulsory government schooling and the handful of scientists working directly in that area of study.
My husband has a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He is the holder of numerous patents. He has published in the leading journals in his field and lectured worldwide.
The amount of time spent on macro evolution on the undergraduate level: 20 MINUTES!
The amount of time spent on macro evolution on the graduate school level: ZERO!
I have a doctorate in a one the most respected health professions.
Time spent on evolution as an undergrad: 20 MINUTES!
Time spent on macro evolution as a grad student: ZERO!
Two of my children earned B.S. degrees in mathematics and one has a masters in mathematics.
Time spent on evolution on the undergrad and graduate levels: ZERO!
My son-in-law is a chemical engineer and carries tremendous responsibility for the safety of the workers in his plant, the quality and purity of the product, and financial success of the company for which he works:
Time spent on macro evolution: ZERO!
Early in my life I was a register nurse.
Time spent on macro evolution in my nursing program: ZERO!
My conclusion: For 99.99999999999999999% of the work done in the U.S. macro evolution is as important them and their work as getting the latest news reports from the dark side of the moon.
That is not true that the Bible describes the earth that way. Have you ever READ it or are you simply parroting what you've heard? Because those arguments are old, worn out, frequently disproved ones that we keep hearing as a justification for rejecting the idea that the Bible has ANYTHING of scientific import to say.
Since evolutionary theory provides the framework for biology, it is nearly impossible to function as a life scientist without understanding it or using it.
Biology is the framework on which the ToE rests. You have it backwards.
Microorganisms evolve so quickly that we can barely stay ahead of them.
Name one NEW microorganism which is a totally NEW one, not identifiable as merely a (fill in the blank) resistant one.
Actually, the Bible describes the earth exactly that way.
I find it funny that as organized religion adapts to the scientific view, people not only stop believing the Biblical description of the earth, they even deny that the Bible describes it that way.
According to the Bible, the earth is flat, it is at the center of everything that exists, the sky is a "firmament" which seems to be a kind of curtain upon which all of the stars and sun are attached, water surrounds the earth and firmament, and animals (consisting of carbon compounds) all popped fully formed out of dirt (consisting of silicates) ~6,000 years ago. Scientific observation supports none of that.
I'm sorry, but where did I say anything about a "godless religious worldview"? Do not ever assume that just because a scientist studies evolutionary concepts or uses them in their work that they are godless. As far as I can tell, the religious affiliations of scientists pretty much reflect those of the general population.
Your very first sentence, again confirms my anecdotal observation, that evolutionist are BULLIES.
Teaching science in science classes is not bullying. If you must compare teaching accurate information to bullying, then you must be very lucky and never had the experience of being bullied. Bullying is a very serious matter that you're basically trying to trivialize.
My husband has a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He is the holder of numerous patents. He has published in the leading journals in his field and lectured worldwide.
The amount of time spent on macro evolution on the undergraduate level: 20 MINUTES!
The amount of time spent on macro evolution on the graduate school level: ZERO!
Is that supposed to impress me? I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology. I have published and presented my work at a number of conferences. Now that the gratuitous bragging is out of the way: Time spent studying evolution in undergraduate school--most of the time I spent in biology classes. Time spent studying evolution in graduate school--just about all of it. Evolutionary topics aren't necessarily called "evolution", but evolution still makes up a large part of biology and drives a huge amount of research.
My son-in-law is a chemical engineer and carries tremendous responsibility for the safety of the workers in his plant, the quality and purity of the product, and financial success of the company for which he works:
Time spent on macro evolution: ZERO!
Nice job, bringing up people you know who don't have degrees in the life sciences, are not life sciences researchers, and who haven't studied evolution nor use evolutionary theory to guide their work. I'd actually be surprised if a chemical engineer were concerned with deriving phylogenetic trees, or trying to determine why and how a particular metabolic pathway is different between different species.
Time I've spent studying chemical engineering processes: ZERO! In that case, they must be completely irrelevant to the modern world.
I'm sorry, but where did I say anything about a "godless religious worldview"?
The following ( your words) are the very definition of an education that is solidly and irrefutably godless in its worldview. If Sister Mary Victoria ( my 7th grade nun) were still alive she would be more than happy to straighten you out, if you continued to be confused about this point.
Your exact words:
Unless the subject is specifically religion related, I see no reason religion should be discussed in any class. We don't, for example, discuss integral calculus in English class, or the declension of Latin nouns in intermediate band class. And the only reason you would see something religious about the topics of biology/geology/astrophysics etc., is because you are injecting a religious component to those subjects where none exists
In my and my husband's Catholic schooling there was more than enough reason an opportunity to discuss religion in all of the classes that you mentioned above. In our family's homeschool as well. Gee! How did our family ever get to be so successful? Amazing isn't it?
In my more generous moods when I meet people who claim what you stated above, I assume that this worldview has been soooooo ingrained due to their godlessly secular indoctrination as children that they are like fish in water. They simply can not see the godless secular humanism in which their are swimming. At other times, I conclude that they are being **deliberately* and spitefully dense just to score debating points and to wear down their conversation partner. When their conversation companion walks away in disgust, the secular humanist falsely believes they have "won" the argument.
I'm sorry, but where did I say anything about a "godless religious worldview"?
The following ( your words) are the very definition of an education that is solidly and irrefutably godless in its worldview. If Sister Mary Victoria ( my 7th grade nun) were still alive she would be more than happy to straighten you out, if you continued to be confused about this point.
Your exact words:
Unless the subject is specifically religion related, I see no reason religion should be discussed in any class. We don't, for example, discuss integral calculus in English class, or the declension of Latin nouns in intermediate band class. And the only reason you would see something religious about the topics of biology/geology/astrophysics etc., is because you are injecting a religious component to those subjects where none exists
In my and my husband's Catholic schooling there was more than enough reason an opportunity to discuss religion in all of the classes that you mentioned above. In our family's homeschool as well. Gee! How did our family ever get to be so successful? Amazing isn't it?
In my more generous moods when I meet people who claim what you stated above, I assume that this worldview has been soooooo ingrained due to their godlessly secular indoctrination as children that they are like fish in water. They simply can not see the godless secular humanism in which their are swimming. At other times, I conclude that they are being **deliberately* and spitefully dense just to score debating points and to wear down their conversation partner. When their conversation companion walks away in disgust, the secular humanist falsely believes they have "won" the argument.
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.