What Would Darwin Advise?

Prison Fellowship ^ | 8/28/2007 | Chuck Colson

[Sopater]

Related Story: Italy Investigates Botched Abortion of Healthy Twin, Disabled Brother Lives

[Coyoteman]

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.

And what important information does Chuck Colson have to share with us about evolutionary theory? The answer is: nothing.

[metmom]

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.

[Sopater]

And what important information does Chuck Colson have to share with us about evolutionary theory? The answer is: nothing.

Wow, Coyoteman. That counterpoint was brilliant. I don't suppose you actually have an answer to the question of how to explain altruism and compassion as a result of evolution being one of the resident experts on the subject.

[Coyoteman]

I don't suppose you actually have an answer to the question of how to explain altruism and compassion as a result of evolution being one of the resident experts on the subject.

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.

[Sopater]

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.

Oh, that's why it's OK to "choose" to kill our "undesirable" children, and/or other people's children. Got it.

Basically, all you've done is attempt to explain how some of these people can sleep at night.

[curiosity]

The ToE falls so woefully short of dealing with anything except the mechanics of how life allegedly progressed

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.

[curiosity]

Oh, that's why it's OK to "choose" to kill our "undesirable" children, and/or other people's children.

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.

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

What makes Darwinism so destructive is NOT evolution, it's eugenics.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Downs Ping

[trisham]

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.

**********

It may also be a ploy to reduce lawsuits. There may be financial incentives as well.

[NYer]

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.”

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

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Social Darwinism seems to be making a comeback.

World War 2 should have destroyed that idea.

Apparently, that war was not strong enough.

[dwhole2th]

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.

[Salvation]

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!

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Yet there are plenty of ramifications if life came about via Macroevolution.

Macroevolution and Creationism are both scientific models of the origins of life and the universe for dueling philosophies.

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Many posters here do have an agenda against the hypothesis of Macroevolution. And you seem to have an agenda in support of typed hypothesis.

Macroevolution does have a part to play in the subject of Down syndrome.

[Coyoteman]

Macroevolution and Creationism are both scientific models of the origins of life and the universe for dueling philosophies.

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.

[Coleus]

.