8mm
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.
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.
Eugenics is totally predicated on Darwinism and the two go hand-in-hand throughout history. The more I study about Darwin and his close associates, the more convinced I become that they really didn’t care at all about nature or evolution of species — their SOLE interest was the complete destruction of Judeo-Christian society and morality. And those who cling to Darwinism today either cannot grasp this or actually support eugenics in all it’s satanic evil.
Care to share you're "studying" that draws you to this conclusion?
Francis Galton, Leonard Darwin and the eugenics movement.
Some here are so committed to the theory of evolution (which was actually first introduced by Charles Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin) that they are unable to see the destruction wrought by eugenics (social Darwinism) which couples Darwin’s theorys with those of Malthus.
With all do respect coyote, you make derogatory comments like these on these threads and then bitch about people who have a problem with TOE....and then turn around and call foul when opinions don’t line up with your beliefs because they are , in your opinion, not science.....so what?
We believe in Creationism, and you do not. You believe in TOE, and we do not. Quit the name-calling and condescension, if you please....
With all do respect coyote, you make derogatory comments like these on these threads and then bitch about people who have a problem with TOE....and then turn around and call foul when opinions don’t line up with your beliefs because they are , in your opinion, not science.....so what?
We believe in Creationism, and you do not. You believe in TOE, and we do not. Quit the name-calling and condescension, if you please....
I see no name-calling in the post you cited above, and no condescension. What I have done is state an opinion.
And you of course are free to believe what you will. Where I have a problem is when folks mistake their religious beliefs for scientific evidence, and bring them into the world of science expecting to be greeted as bringers of light to the benighted and deluded "evilutionists."
Scientists who have studied their fields intensely for 30 or 40 years have little patience for the types of nonsense that are passed off as science by creationists.
Colson's article above does just that with the concepts of altruism and compassion, using them in an attempt to discredit "Darwinism" -- as if group behavior was not an important factor in passing on the genes of that group.
I guess it's not surprising, then, that you're learning about eugenics.
I trust that you've learned in your studies of the enthusiastic embrace of eugenics by mainstream American Protestant clergy in the first half of the 20th century, who managed to find some rather remarkable theological justifications for it. If not, you might begin by reading: Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement, Christine Rosen (Oxford University Press).
“Where I have a problem is when folks mistake their religious beliefs for scientific evidence....”
You just made my point.
If you think it’s not science, it can’t be true. It’s in your comments over and over and over.....
If our beliefs don’t fit into your box of science so what. If your science can’t explain certain things, that means they are false, is that it?
If you bothered to read the article, it is specifically about eugenics and not about scientific evolution. Darwin’s legacy is over 100 MILLION deaths in the past century alone. You are the one you cannot seem to grasp that Darwinism encompasses a lot more than the scientific theory of evolution.
I’m well aware that clergy once embraced eugenics, just as in the previous centuries they had embraced slavery. What I find far more disturbing are those people who embrace eugenics and slavery TODAY.
If you wish to argue in the realm of science, you need to use scientific methods. Belief is not evidence.
Indeed. But I was, of course, responding to your specific comment that --
The more I study about Darwin and his close associates, the more convinced I become that they really didn’t care at all about nature or evolution of species — their SOLE interest was the complete destruction of Judeo-Christian society and morality.
"I’m well aware that clergy once embraced eugenics, just as in the previous centuries they had embraced slavery."
Given your statement block-quoted above, do you find it in the least surprising that Judeo-Christian society enthusiastically embraced that which was purportedly designed to completely destroy it?
What I find far more disturbing are those people who embrace eugenics and slavery TODAY.
Who would that be?
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.