What Would Darwin Advise?

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

[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.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Mr. Silverback]

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

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.

[Mr. Silverback]

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.

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.

[Mr. Silverback]

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

Unlikely. The risk of complications from an amnio is higher than the risk of being sued for missing a genetic disease.

[Mr. Silverback]

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.

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.)

[Mr. Silverback]

Since Coyoteman accused IDers of attempting to overthrow the government and implement theocracy in this thread I think he has as much credibility on this subject or any subject relating to evolutionary theory and society as Pee Wee Herman does. Note the subject of the linked thread and the way he dodges the question of whether eliminating religious practice is a legitimate major goal for scientists.

[Coyoteman]

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.

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.

[higgmeister]

What Would Darwin Advise?

Chuck how about, don't commit heinous crimes for which the President would be held culpable.

[Coyoteman]

Since Coyoteman accused IDers of attempting to overthrow the government and implement theocracy in this thread I think he has as much credibility on this subject or any subject relating to evolutionary theory and society as Pee Wee Herman does. Note the subject of the linked thread and the way he dodges the question of whether eliminating religious practice is a legitimate major goal for scientists.

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!

[gondramB]

>>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.

[Mr. Silverback]

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.

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.

[Mr. Silverback]

Ah...yet another small person who wants to ignore (or is ignorant of) Colson’s 30+ years of work for the Gospel. Truly impressive.

[Mr. Silverback]

You're welcome. I'll be sure to use that one from now on, and also point them to where I smacked you into silence in post 37. Perhaps you'd care to answer the questions now:

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?

[Old_Mil]

Quite the contrary—it’s a variation that, if Darwin were right, should have been “rigidly destroyed” a long time ago.

While I don't disagree with the philosophical premise of the author, Down's syndrome is a birth defect caused by maternal nondisjunction. That is, it's not an "inherited" chromosomal abnormality that can be passed in Mendalian (or even multifactorial) fashion. It happens post conception when the fertilized egg starts to divide...so to be fair, the fact that this hasn't been eliminated from the gene pool doesn't say anything about natural selection or Darwinism.

[Coyoteman]

Just review the changes in this website over the past several years. Those changes -- for example, the increasing "you evilutionists are going to burn in hell" attitude -- have been getting worse until they now dominate on many of the threads formerly occupied y scientists. These changes have already chased many of the scientists from the site. Here are some examples of why:

Evolution is a cult of the devil's propagation. (400 posted on 01/14/2006 8:15:14 PM PST by Baraonda)

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

And you want evidence that creationists are hoping and planning for a theocracy? Try reading the Wedge Strategy.

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!

And I thought good old fashioned book-burning had gone out of style.

[higgmeister]

I'll let you judge the good works.

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!

[Mr. Silverback]

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.

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?

[Mr. Silverback]

Let me deal with this before I get to the absolutely hilarious stuff in the rest of your post:

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?

[metmom]

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.

Maybe you should tell your fellow evos that. They seem to think it can explain compassion and alturism.

Read the thread.

[MountainFlower]

WOW! I expected to see stuff here about the amnio, the Downs babies and that direction....this taken a veer in the direction I wasn't expecting.

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!