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.
curiosity: Nonsense.
No, not nonsense. According to the ToE and it's supporters, man is just a different variety of animal. Evos continually tell us that we're just apes; we evolved from some primordial soup or bacteria. That gives no inherent worth to humans above that of any other animal. It certainly doesn't provide any reason that the individual human has any special value, except maybe what he can provide to the gene pool. How exciting.
If you can provide any evidence that the ToE can demonstrate any human worth or value, by all means, post it.
Otherwise, all it leads to is that we're just the result of some random mutations that happened to survive random environmental changes by the sheer luck of having the *right* genetic material that just happened to fit that particular environment. And for what?
And yet, how many evolutionists screech about this guy like he's the antiChrist? Reminds me of this Emo Phillips routine:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.
If the issue really was wheat you say it is, evolutionists wouldn't be so upset at his suggestions.
Did Sopater post this to chat, or did it get moved there? If it’s the latter, I can’t see why.
That's would all be true if you just removed the "just." Yes, we're a variety of animal. Yes, we're evolved from an ape-like ancestor. But so what? That in no way denies the uniqueness of man. We're animals, yes, but we're vastly more intelligent and rational than all others. We're the only animal that can produce art and culture. We're the only animal that can produce a civilization. We're the only animal that can practice science and philosophy. Finally, and most importantly, we're the only animal that can sense there's a greater purpose to the universe, that there's a meaning to life that goes beyond eating and reproducing.
That by all accounts makes us special, and the fact that we share a common ancestor with the great apes doesn't change one iota of that. Nor does the theory of evolution rule out that we have a soul, nor does it have say anything about our relationship with God. All of this can be true whether or not the theory of evolution is true.
we evolved from some primordial soup or bacteria. That gives no inherent worth to humans above that of any other animal.
Sorry, but that just doesn't follow logically.
It certainly doesn't provide any reason that the individual human has any special value, except maybe what he can provide to the gene pool.
No, the theory of evolution doesn't provide such a reason, but it doesn't rule out that there could be reasons, either. Whether the human has any special value is not a question that science can answer, either yea or nay. That is the place for philosophy, and there are plenty of philosophical reasons to believe human beings are special (some of them mentioned above). The theory of evolution in no way invalidates these reasons; it's simply irrelevant to them.
I think I see another logical fallacy at work here: you're assuming that a person's origins are relevant to his worth. But that's silly. Is a holy saint any less holy because he had bad parents? Some of the greatest saints in Church history had bad parents. Look at St. Francis.
Man has intrinsic value because of who he is, regardless of the mechanism that God choose to bring him into being.
Likewise, there are a lot of things upon which philosophers and theologians pontificate that are simply irrelevant to science.
The two fields largely separated a couple of centuries ago (largely during the aptly-named Enlightenment), but the poor benighted philosophers and theologians still think they are running things.
thank you for the clarification!
way to go!
Most of evolution, geology, archeology, paleontology, or any other historical science, by your list would fall under “conjecture” then.
“altruism and compassion as a result of evolution being one of the resident experts on the subject.”
For that matter, evolution should not have allowed a “God” concept to have even been formed in our species nor have allowed our species formed by evolution to be found at odds with nature!
“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”
That doesn’t explain the altruism shown towards Downs type afflicted genetically damaged children who obviously aren’t going to be passing their genes on. The evolutionary process you so worship should have built into our instinctual awareness to recognize such damaged children and put them to death the instant they are born. We should have no guilt in doing this as it is the evolutionary way.
Have a low income status and unable to feed all our young? Evolutionary honed instincts should just kick in and we should just kill the weakest and useless of our young ones in order that the greatest number should survive. Other species do this without guilt, why should we not do the same?
Yes lets just drink the Evolution Kool-aid so that we can suffer its spiritual numbing cyanide ....lets “Eat, Drink, and be Merry, for tomorrow we die”. Lets give in to social Darwinism and live as Rome once again, Death to Pity and Sentimental Altruism and throw your unwanted children into the Pontine Marshes or leave them exposed...and for our first Ceasar..Hail Coyoteman!
yes, but evolution is supposed to be directionless,changes over time, so it cannot “direct” towards greater altrusim. what ever the snap shot of today is, its not the means (altrusim) its the ends (survival and reproduction) that are determining factor.(if “morality” is only a trait of evolution..
directionless changes over time as a sole cause cannot produce morality that is unchanging and timeless.
you guys may want to check out this link as well
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/deadlymedicine/profiles/
Personally, I'm not in the least upset at Michael Behe's suggestions. I don't think his suggestions are either testable or supported by any evidence, and I view his suggestions as the equivalent of a blackboard equation with [insert miracle here] plugged in at a critical juncture, but Mr. Behe is free to suggest whatever he wants.
On the other hand, I do find it disturbing when efforts are made to insert theological suppositions such as Mr. Behe's into science curricula.
I suppose it's one of the side effects of the hyperspecialization that's become so pervasive in academia today. There's really no room for a Renaissance man in the modern university. While there's a rational reason for that, namely, that mastery of any field today requires so much effort it precludes the ability to gain familiarity with others, it has is drawbacks. This is one of them.
Without philosophy, there is no ethics. There is no basis for condemning the experiments of Japanese scientists on Chinese victims during WW2, for example.
Without the work of philosophers, we would have no formal logic.
In fact, you cannot argue for the importance of the scientific method without philosophy. There's a reason why every major university has a Philosophy of Science department.
4. Are you supporting the idea that a main goal of scientists should be to eliminate religion?
Let's hear it.
You must not be familiar with his work. When someone claims they have found structures that couldn't evolve and provides examples of those structures, that would be evidence.
On the other hand, I do find it disturbing when efforts are made to insert theological suppositions such as Mr. Behe's into science curricula.
By definition his assertions are not theological; they are biochemistry hypotheses.
Creationism is religion criticizing Darwinism. ID is scientists criticizing Darwinism. That's why it inspires fear.
Can you please identify from Mr. Behe's latest book which structures he now claims to be irreducibly complex? Be careful. Mr. Behe has hemmed, hawed, and distanced himself from his earlier, alleged examples.
By definition his assertions are not theological; they are biochemistry hypotheses.
What kind of definition are you using? Mr. Behe's current "hypothesis" is that molecular mutation is mysteriously "guided" by an (allegedly) unknown Intelligent Designer. In what conceivable way is this particular ascription of divine guidance to the mutation process different from, say, clerical claims that God mysteriously intervenes to point hurricanes at sinners? If the latter is, by definition, a theological claim, can you explain why Mr. Behe's claim is not?
ID is scientists criticizing Darwinism. That's why it inspires fear.
If ID is science, then its proponents must, of course, be doing some primary research or field work. I'm not aware of any. Are you?
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.