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.
Evolutionary psychology might be able to explain why human beings have a tendency to act this way.
But that's just a description of human behavioral patterns and they developed. It's not a moral prescription. It doesn't follow from the notion that evolution gave us altruistic and compassionate tendencies that we ought to be altruistic or compassionate.
Evolution, like all natural sciences, is only descriptive. It is not, and can never be, prescriptive.
All it means is that the practice of science needs to be placed within strict ethical boundaries.
“If you wish to argue in the realm of science, you need to use scientific methods. Belief is not evidence.”
I’m not arguing in the realm of science (or what is or isn’t scientific) nor have I tried; You keep dumping everything into your science box and if it doesn’t fit then it’s not true.
How does science explain The Resurrection of Christ? Or do you think it’s not possible?
This isn't even true, some embraced it but most didn't.
What I find far more disturbing are those people who embrace eugenics and slavery TODAY.
Who would that be?
I'm not aware of any FReepers who support slavery, but there are many that embrace eugenics.
Of the five major threads of the concept of evolution, this would be Spencerian rather than Darwinian.
That is historiological and the major modern application of the concept of evolution. It has nothing to do with Darwinianism.
How does science explain The Resurrection of Christ? Or do you think it’s not possible?
That is a religious belief.
However, when someone, acting upon religious belief, states that, for example, there was a global flood about seven miles deep about 4350 years ago, science can check to see if that is supported by scientific evidence. The global flood claim is not supported by scientific evidence. Believers will still believe in the flood, but unless they produce scientific evidence scientists will not be persuaded.
How does science explain The Resurrection of Christ? Or do you think it’s not possible?
“That is a religious belief.”
No, it’s not a belief. It’s a fact. It was witnessed by hundreds if not thousands of people. And just because it’s not contained in a book that has “Science” on it doesn’t mean it’s not true.
You -- This isn't even true, some embraced it but most didn't.
Actually, if you review the history of the eugenics movement, you'll find that clerical ties and endorsements lent great credibility to the movement and had a significant impact on its propagation. A great many influential clergy zealously preached the eugenics party line.
As a small sample in America, Kenneth C. MacArthur, who was pastor of the Federated Church in Sterling Massachusetts and a lecturer at Andover Newton Seminary, was also a spokesman for the "American Eugenics Society" (yes, there was such a thing) and an advocate for what was then referred to as the "Social Gospel."
Harry F. Ward, a professor of Christian ethics at Union Theological Seminary and a founder of the Methodist Federation for Social Service, encouraged Christians in his publications to help remove "the causes that produce the weak," preaching a consistent eugenic line against coddling the unfit.
Walter Taylor Sumner, dean of the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul in Chicago, instituted a system of inspection for prospective couples to ensure that they were "normal physically and mentally."
John Haynes Holmes, who was Unitarian minister of New York’s Church of the Messiah, encouraged his fellow members of the Liberal Ministers’ Association of New York "to perform nothing but health marriages."
Charles Davenport (who was the son of a New York Congregationalist minister), with funding from Andrew Carnegie, had the American Eugenics Society sponsor contests for sermons on "better breeding," held "Fitter Family" competitions, and encouraged local efforts to sterilize the unfit. Indeed, it was the general theme of the American Eugenics Society that eugenic responsibility was a personal, religious, and civic matter to be addressed in the home, the parish, and the courthouse.
(On a side note, particularly fascinating were the county fair eugenics booths, with signs asking why pedigree was so carefully attended to in livestock but not in children.)
Galton himself used a religious and specifically Christian gloss in his arguments, with a fine example being this paper delivered to the Sociological Society of London in 1905.
Eugenics was a pernicious bastardization of evolutionary principals. Oddly enough, it was, I believe, the result of precisely the kind of flaccid and non-rigorous reasoning employed by anti-evolutionists today, wherein gross generalizations and deliberate misrepresentations are touted to the scientifically ignorant on the basis of "gut feelings" and easily manipulated "common sense." And there is, as well, the curious common denominator of religious fervor between the specious reasoning then and the specious reasoning now.
Somehow, I appear to have inserted a bad (or inconsistent) link to Galton’s 1905 paper.
The link in full is —
http://galton.org/galton/galton/essays/1900-1911/galton-1905-am-journ-soc-studies-eugenics.htm
Granted, many did support it, but most didn't.
Eugenics was a pernicious bastardization of evolutionary principals. Oddly enough, it was, I believe, the result of precisely the kind of flaccid and non-rigorous reasoning employed by anti-evolutionists today, wherein gross generalizations and deliberate misrepresentations are touted to the scientifically ignorant on the basis of "gut feelings" and easily manipulated "common sense." And there is, as well, the curious common denominator of religious fervor between the specious reasoning then and the specious reasoning now.
I'm not quite sure what point your are trying to make other than to make the claim that evolutionists do not necessarily support eugenics (though many do). I have not debated evolution on FR for a long time, I realized a long time ago that neither side was going to change the other's mind. What I am talking about is the dark side of Darwinism that many evolutionists are either unaware of or simply hope will go unnoticed. The fact that Galton used Christian rhetoric in his writings and speeches doesn't make him a Christian any more than it made Hitler a Christian when he employed the same ideals several decades later.
You don’t get it. All creation stories/theories carry an inherent philosophy that cannot be separated out. The creation theory/story can carry a human life honoring philosophy, or a philosophy that human life is worthless or very near worthless. Evolution carries a morally degenerate philosophy of the near worthlessness of individual human life that shows through to the public even with the most dry explanation.
If Evolution proponents are really serious about public acceptance, then they have to acknowledge this philosophical defect to their theory.
What about:
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?
and
How does science explain The Resurrection of Christ? Or do you think it’s not possible?
You just knee jerked to the Flood again, your default change the subject reaction.
Stop trolling. It’s very unbecoming.
Says who?
Evolution carries a morally degenerate philosophy of the near worthlessness of individual human
Nonsense.
No.
Making unsupported assertions won't help your credibility problem.
If you make an assertion, the burden of proof is on you. Until you support it with something, the only rational response is denial.
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.