In a speech to his own former department (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), Benedict XVI condemned modern science's intrusions into the creation of human life -- embryonic stem cell research, artificial insemination, freezing of embryos, and the prospect of human cloning. He said that such methods "shattered" basic human dignity.
Pope says some science shatters human dignity, on Reuters.com
I am much more impressed by this Bishop of Rome's statements on science than those of his predecessor, John Paul II. John Paul claimed, for example, that the Darwinist theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis" and not contrary to Biblical revelation. Benedict seems to be on a much firmer footing with regard to the Church's role as a check on the excesses of modern science.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Pope: Human dignity "shattered" by amoral science
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
How is the Darwinist theory of evolution an "excess" of scienc?
Woodsmoke, I thought you might ask about this. :-)
The question being debated--to put it in its sharpest form--is whether
(1) all life evolved by a totally random, unguided process from a single-celled ancestor or ancestors which was derived only from non-living chemical substances; or
(2) living things were designed and made by a personal, ultra-intelligent Creator God.
It might seem that #1 is subject to scientific testing, while #2 is not. But the truth is that #1 (like #2) makes many claims that are not supported by the scientific method and, by definition, cannot be. The scientific method requires repeatable tests (experiments) under controlled conditions, leading to consistent results. But how in the world can you repeat, in a laboratory and under controlled experimental conditions, the supposed random and unguided origins of life from non-life? The origins and development of life are not topics on which science is competent to speak with finality.
Meanwhile, to the extent that science can draw conclusions from the evidence available to us, the data suggest very strongly that an intelligent Designer/Creator was necessarily involved in the origins and development of living things. However, this evidence (as presented by scientists associated with the "Intelligent Design" movement) is frequently ignored or forcibly suppressed by power brokers in the scientific community--who have everything to lose if neo-Darwinism is discredited scientifically.
Thousands if not millions of pages have been written about these issues, but here are a few resources to check out if you're interested:
The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a think tank promoting the cause of Intelligent Design.
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University.
Scott Minnich (here on Wikipedia), a leading proponent of Intelligent Design who is an associate professor of microbiology at the U of I.
Wikipedia page for Darwin on Trial, a classic (1991) book questioning Darwinism that helped to launch the Intelligent Design movement.
I'd be glad to talk about this stuff in person with you sometime.
-Jeff
My interest is obviously piqued. I will check out your recommended websites for sure. And yeah, let this be a conversation piece for next time. It seems like it's been forever since we have argued our heads off with each other.
Jumping in a bit late, but I can't resist putting this forward. To my thinking, the REAL basis for much of the debate over the creation/chance antithesis, and also the intrusion of science into areas it oughtn't follow, is simply this: money. Look at the source of funding of every darwinist, every proponent of human reproductive meddling (including abortion, perhaps starting with that one). It always, universally, traces back to government funding. Those who hold to some form of intelligent design and have been in the pay of some government entity are the ones facing the strongest pressures and sanctions. And don't be fooled by those in the employ of "private" achools, either. Who finances the education at such schools through student loans? Right..the Big G. The whole kerfuffle on "global warming" has similar roots. Those promoting the "impending disaster" scenaria either already slop at the public trough, or are maneouvring to become part of the "solution", at which point they will be. Ever notice that NO ONE involved in embryonic stem cell research any more is privately funded? Wonder why? True scientists see no future in it. Private money (all non-government money) is all behind non-embryonic sources for stem cells, and has already developed many usable and effective cures. Every time I see another state (or state-funded school) going after embryonic stem cell research it angers me..a waste of pubic money, and state governments meddling where they've no business meddling. And that doesn't even approach the ethics side of the issue. Watch the struggle ensuing every time any attempt is made to limit public moneys aiding and promoting the abortion industry (which limiting includes the promotion of abstinence--if the child is not conceived, there will be no abortion, no "customer") Yes, as per usual, "follow the money" reveals much. I have to say, the Pope is spot on in his stance, and good on him for taking it, and making it public. He is a man of integrity and courage. His stands against such things, including homosexuality, is honourable and commendable. Would that many more christian leaders would be so bold and forthright, and so fearless of the consequences.
Post a Comment