The following comes from a May 31 article on MercatorNet.com.
Let’s wind the clock back to 2003. In January wheelchair-bound quadriplegic actor Christopher Reeve visited Australia to promote the legalisation of “therapeutic cloning”. This was absolutely necessary, he said, or patients would die needlessly. Scepticism about the potential of embryonic stem cells was utterly unwarranted. “That’s a myth,” he told his Australian audience. “That’s not true. Don’t let anyone tell you it is a pipedream.”
In July that year the New England Journal of Medicine, the world’s leading medical journal, published a review article about the “promise of universal healing” in embryonic stem cells. “The Promethean prospect of eternal regeneration awaits us, while time’s vulture looks on,” the hyperventilating author wrote….
“I have never seen in my career a biological tool as powerful as the stem cells. It addresses every single human disease,” said Hans Keirstead, of the University of California, Irvine.
Dissenters contended that adult stem cells already offered ethical avenues to cures and that embryonic stem cells would never work. Embryos were human beings and that it was moral madness to treat human life as a research tool. Women would be victims, too, as therapeutic cloning would require huge stocks of eggs. And besides, for a number of reasons, it just would not work.
The stakes were immense and the dissenters lost. Ethics had to take a back seat to science. Bioethicist Ruth Faden and stem cell scientist John Gearhart, both leaders in their field, spoke for many: “We believe that the obligation to relieve human suffering binds us all and justifies the instrumental use of early embryonic life.”
But the cures never came.
In the past ten years the single most memorable event in embryonic stem cell research has been setting a world record for scientific fraud. In 2004 and 2005 Science published two papers by Hwang Woo-suk, a South Korean scientist. He claimed that he had successfully isolated human embryonic stem cells. Korea printed stamps in his honour and he was feted as an international celebrity. But he was a charlatan, his results were bogus and he had obtained human eggs unethically.
Press releases continued to gush from stem cell institutes, but they were always about promising developments rather than proven cures. In 2011, after many false starts and a year after launching a human trial for spinal cord injuries to cure people like Christopher Reeve, the California-based biotechnology firm Geron pulled the plug on all of its embryonic stem cell research to focus on cancer drugs. It had to: it was going broke.
The reason why stem cell research with embryos has faded from the headlines is that it has been superseded by “induced pluripotent stem cells”. In 2007 Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka showed that it was possible to create stem cell lines from skin cells without destroying embryos. Almost immediately leading stem cell scientists abandoned embryonic stem cell research. Yamanaka – a man who had spurned embryonic stem cell research as unethical — won the Nobel Prize in Medicine last year.
For various reasons some scientists continue to champion the cause of hESCs. Earlier this month researchers at Oregon Health and Science University announced that they had cloned human embryos and successfully extracted embryonic stem cells. The study was published in the journal Cell after a lightning peer review. It was a “tour de force” and “an unparalleled achievement”, said George Daly of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.
His jubilation was short-lived.
The main effect of this paper was to evoke the nightmare of the Hwang scandal. Sharp-eyed readers noticed that some images had been duplicated. Clouds began to gather over the results. “It’s a degree of sloppiness that you wouldn’t expect in a paper that was going to have this high profile,” an expert told Nature. “One worries if there is more than meets the eye and whether there are other issues with the work that are not as apparent.”
So this is the sputtering end of the greatest bioethical battle of the 21st century: just another a blip of embarrassment in the 24/7 news cycle. As the Boston Globe has pointed out, “The emergence of reprogrammed stem cells, the difficulty of the involved method, and the obstacles to obtaining donor eggs for the procedure all make the advance more an important technical feat than a game-changer for stem cell scientists or a platform for new therapies.”
Isn’t it about time to establish a Stem Cell Truth and Reconciliation Commission? To get government funding so that they could play God with human embryos, scientists and bioethicists barnstormed, fibbed, exaggerated, hyped, and caricatured. It was a brutal battle in which truth came second. “People need a fairy tale,” said Ronald D.G. McKay, another leading stem cell scientist.
Foes of embryo research were called troglodytes and religious fundamentalists. Their scientific credentials were questioned. They were accused of being callous and indifferent to the suffering of patients with chronic illness.
And yet they were right….
To read original story, click here.
Scientists who have preconceived outcomes in mind will often bend the rules to achieve their intended goals. We have seen the same dishonesty displayed in the climate change frauds committed by so-called climate scientists. Dishonest science is not true science but a fraud. Sign me “a knuckle-dragging troglodyte fundamentalist Christian anti-science fanatic”.
You probably don’t believe in evolution either.
Evolution is a quasi theory that has not been proven.
No one has to ‘beleive’ in it. It might not even be plausible. Mostly we know of extinct species but there is really no evidence that one specie evolved into another.
I knew it! Disparage science (evolution, climate change, stem cell research) because you think it is better to ignore what the Church teaches about its relationship to science.
At what point are you going to tell us where to find proof of evelution as settled science.
As in moved from the realm of theories into scientific fact? How many years has it been since Darwin? 130 years give or take?
Yet his theories remain just that, theories.
The Catholic Church is against embryonic stem cell research only. It supports adult stem cell research.
The Church is in the business of SAVING SOULS, – Faith and Morals as stated in the Bible and the CCC.
Not science, mathematics, or sports, or other subjects which can be debated.
FAITH & MORALS –
CCC: ” 2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. ”
CCC: ” 2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God. “
wrong on all accounts.
You are so utterly predictable YFC…on all counts! And you really need to ask Jesus to take away that chip on your shoulder. You’re mad at everybody and can be so rude sometimes. Maryanne wrote what she did in love…what a caring thing she did for you and you just blew it off. You need some love for others, brother. If you can’t love people (perfectly understandable, by the way) ask Jesus to love them through you. Anton, Kenneth and so many of the men here are so gentle and kind…you could learn alot from them. You look pretty young in your photo.
May the God of peace himself make you perfectly holy and may you entirely, spirit, soul, and body, be preserved blameless for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Thessal. 5: 23.
YFC, are you letting us know that you do not know what science is, or what a theory is? Wow, I did not realize you were as challenged as you have demonstrated here. But you’ve come to the right place, YFC. All your questions can be answered clearly and your arguments brought into the normalcy of rational thought. Your move.
So called YFC, Mbûkû Kanyau Mbithûka is wrong because you say so, just what are your Scientific credentials if any?
May God have mercy on your soul,
Kenneth M. Fisher
I have graduate training in the biological sciences and have published peer reviewed papers as a faculty member of a local university. That is my training and credentials.
No you are wrong YFC as all liberals always are
YFC, I would like to know if you are open, tolerant,
charitable and considerate to the views of your fellow peer scientist who disparage (evolution, climate change, stem cell research) as junk science. In addition, I hope that you open, tolerant, charitable and considerate to all of your students, (if there are any) who openly question your opinions on the research you site in your classes?
Canisius, did you know that only 6% of scientists are Republican? There is a reason for this. The Republican party in general, and religious conservatives in particular, have bought into the fundamentalist notion that one of the three creation stories in the Old Testament is literally true. From this, all manner of distrust of science has emerged, and it is really pathetic.
I’m very sad that some Catholics are buying into this fundamentalist distrust of science. It is actually opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church. At the rate we are going, the country is going to become Seventh Day Adventists, or worse, go back to dwelling in dark caves to escape the coming floods and heat waves.
As to the question from Tracy, yes I am tolerant of the people who espouse those positions. But it is not very difficult to show that those opinions lack a basis in fact or logic.
Evolution is more than a quasi-theory. Many aspects of evolutionary theory are proven science fact. At the time Darwin wrote “Origin of the Species”, no proof existed that traits were inherited from parents. Not only did Darwin postulate this, he also correctly described variability within a species driven by natural selection.
The result is that even if Darwin is eventually proven wrong about speciation, his evolutionary theory still explains fundamental processes in ecosystems and animal behavior. He transformed the biological sciences—even without speciation theory.
The only people contemptuous of Darwin are religious nuts.
I’m sorry, JonJ, but Fr. Gregor Mendel had shown that traits are passed through the parents. He was an Augustinian Friar. The bible (cough, cough) also states that traits are passed through the parents – Gen 1:11. Additionally, any person involved in animal husbandry would know this, as well as any slaver or race supremacist.
If evolutionists would deign to clearly define their terms, and not change them based upon the need of the moment, much of this confusion would be cleared up. A population can ‘evolve’ within the limits of its genetic potential. Thus, Darwin’s finch beak changes. It cannot ‘evolve’ beyond its genetic potential. No ‘goo to you’ or ‘rats to cats’ evolution is possible.
In the end, it is only logic. Competition for anything with a species is most fierce within the species. Bears compete with other bears for ‘bear’ resources. They do not compete as closely for their needs with anything else in their ecosystem. If a bear ‘evolved’ into something else, then the survival of the fittest pressure would end, and so the need to evolve. Besides, nothing can give what it does not have.
Darwinism is bankrupt on so many levels. Aside from that, it is a scientifically irrelevant theory, in that it has not added on iota to our knowledge that has cured cancer, bred better crops, aided our understanding of biology, nothing. In fact, science continually finds fault with evolution’s hypotheses (when they can pin them down). Look up ‘junk’ DNA or ‘vestigial’ organs.
But Darwinism is nice if you want to be an “Intellectually fulfilled Atheist.” It is simply a fairy tale for atheists and naturalistic materialists.
But keep believing it. Then tell us about it in a few years after science has overturned the Copernican Principle, and we get our physics, geometry, and math back with a central earth.
Alan, wow. You really don’t know what you’re talking about. The idea that Darwin didn’t add an iota to biological knowledge is so blatantly wrong I’m surprised you can tie your own shoes. Btw, I have a master’s in molecular biology. I have no need to “look up” non-coding DNA sequences or vestigial organs.
Let’s just look at the field of animal behavior. You can’t really understand it without the theory of natural selection. Natural selection theory is used EVERY FREAK’N DAY in the LAB and has driven countless discoveries in fields like Parisitology, virology, population genetics, genetics, ecology, animal behavior, and way too many to list. The only way you can think that evolutionary theory hasn’t helped is if you haven’t read or participated in biological research.
For example, even if we throw out speciation, natural selection can predict changing gene frequencies within a population (a subject known as population genetics). Natural selection predicts the effect of predation on species variability in an ecosystem—which, btw, has been proven by experiment.
To say that Darwinian theory provided no insight into the Biological sciences is something only a religious nutjob can believe, because we can prove otherwise with many experiments. Note: any biologist should admit that no one has proven that natural selection can turn one species into another (speciation). The effects on biological systems that CAN be proven due to natural selection are numerous and profound.
Btw, while Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin, Mendel was unknown to him because Mendel’s work wasn’t published until after Mendel died. What Darwin did was establish a theoretical framework for inheritance—AND HOW THAT AFFECTED the behavior of biological organisms. Further, Darwin showed us how different species competed for biological niches —and the basics of what we today call ecosystems. Mendel did neither of these things.
So, while the Bible might have talked about inheriting traits from parents, it didn’t tell you squat about what that meant in terms of the behavior and functioning of biological systems. Darwin did.
Btw, Biologists DO define these terms clearly. What you’re describing is what biologists call genetic variability WITHIN a species as opposed to speciation. Just because you’re too lazy—or lack the intellect—to study the subject doesn’t mean biologists haven’t defined these terms.
Btw, Alan, the church sees no conflict between evolutionary theory and catholic faith. The idea that “evolution” is for atheists is a protestant idea.
It’s great to know we have some biologists willing to contribute to a discussion which looks very much like a miniature version of what passes for discourse in the 21st century US.
While I am in complete agreement with you and I applaud your systematic presentation of the facts regarding natural selection, I think the cause of Truth will be served best if we avoid personal attacks on character or intelligence. People who aren’t scientists can’t be insulted into enlightenment. The effectiveness of rational exchange and Christian conduct are greatest when they are hardest to follow, as when someone makes an uninformed and inflammatory statement. And CCD gives us so many opportunities to be an enlightened and awake Christian! This, I think, is an area where the practices of science, psychology and rational thought are in total harmony with the practice of following Christ.
Oh come on Francis, we all know Darwin AND Abbot Mendel were homosexualist liberal apostates.
Mendel and the “peas”…doesn’t exactly prove the theory of evolution…personally, I believe the earth is very ancient…probably billions of years old…creatures probably developed slowly, over eons of time…some died off due to climate change, gravity, insufficient resources etc….those that survived may have gone through a period of “environmental plasticity”, which propelled some species to adapt, survive and become the dominant species, of each family, of each order and of each class, representing each phylum…those that effectively embraced plasticity, may have evolved, in order to survive…
Ditto Anton…”Dishonest science…fraud”, and doomed to fail.
YFC – who cares about cheap jabs!
Read “The Signature in the Cell” by Stephen Meyer and then say you believe in evolution, YFC. It’s a brilliant study of DNA and he deals with incredible duplicity and lies carried on in the so-called educational community. He’s a brilliant scientist himself and the book is the latest research even though it was printed I think in 2002. Read it…I dare you!!
Dana, this book CANNOT include the latest research if it was printed 11 years ago.
I understand that non-scientists do not understand how rapidly new information accumulates in basic sciences. Even so, I looked up this book and discovered it was a justification for Intelligent Design.
The reason why we pursue scientific knowledge is to use the mechanistic nature of the universe to produce beneficial products and services to help mankind. No matter what we think about the origin of the universe, we know that the universe typically operates according to a set of mechanistic forces that can be manipulated with sufficient knowledge.
Intelligent Design’s purpose is to establish that reality was created by some outside entity. Since no living human being possesses divine or miraculous powers, Intelligent Design won’t help us accomplish anything. It doesn’t tell us anything about the mechanistic nature of the universe—knowledge of which has provided us with the technological breakthroughs that have greatly extended lifespans and enabled the vast expansion of human capabilities we enjoy today.
The only potential benefit of Intelligent Design is to help fundamentalist preachers fill the pews of their church or help people of faith claim greater status in society. Even if evolutionary theory about speciation is wrong, it helps attack practical problems in the lab (such as how to find and exploit biological similarities between vastly disparate species or cell lines that don’t resemble each other on the surface). It’s close enough to right that scientists will still continue to use it until you provide something that yields better results.
Until Intelligent Design can show that it helps solve problems faced by researchers in even one field of study, scientists aren’t going to care.
Creationism, now redefined as “intelligent design” is one of those things that makes the US the laughing stock of the world. Americans have won more Nobel Prizes than any other country, but we are losing ground, not in some small measure due to the contempt with which we hold science. We mock God by trying to fit her into a box that we think looks pretty. Far better to honor him by seeking the truth, even if it leads us to question our own beliefs. There can be multiple paths to understand Truth, but we must believe that ultimately they all lead to the same Truth.
Hey, YFC, I have to give Dana some credit. The Signature in the Cell is a better book than I thought.
I didn’t recognize Meyer’s name when Dana first mentioned it, but as I read the preface to his book he mentioned he was the guy that published the Intelligent Design article in the peer review journal that cause a bunch of controversy about 8 or 9 years ago. At the time, I read his article and didn’t think much of it. His article tried to use a lot of analogous patterns to suggest that we can see similar patterns in biological life and thus we must conclude there was an Intelligent Designer. Of course, he provided NO discussion about the theoretical implications for biological systems if his assertion is true.
However, in his book he uses the increased room to make a better case. I must say, Meyer is not a religious nut jub. He wants to use scientific methods and is interested in scientific questions. He’s more of a “big picture” theorist and science philosopher than an experimenter (he doesn’t run experiments).
I haven’t finished his book. But, at this point, he is dismissing the “chance” hypothesis for Neo Darwinian origin theories. I do think he dismisses “chance” too cavalierly—he is clearly biased in favor of an intelligent designer, probably driven by faith reasons to a certain extent.
He calculates an unimaginably small chance that a functional protein could arise by chance—and a phenomenal 1×10 41,000 probability that a functional suite of proteins to enable a single cell bacteria to function could arise by chance. Yet, there are two problems I have with his calculation; 1) he assumes that each amino acid joining the sequence to form a protein is an independent event. Could the conformational shape of the building chain start eliminating possible pairings, such that the “right” base adding becomes ever more probable as the molecule builds? and 2) just how big is reality?
Meyers dismisses chance by estimating the possible number of potential interactions that could occur in the visible universe. He says there aren’t enough possible interactions since the big bang to yield a single protein built by random interaction. But, just how much of reality is OUTSIDE the visible universe? Thus if reality were “big” enough, then we COULD have arisen by random chance. Meyers, for example, never considers the work of theoretical physicists who postulate that every chance event creates a set of alternative realities in which each possible outcome occurs.
Certainly, we have wandered into the realm of speculation to support the “chance” hypothesis. We cannot know what we don’t know—and trying to guess the size of “reality” outside our visual range (the distance light can travel to us since the big bang) is something I cannot imagine we can estimate anytime soon.
Look at this statement:
“To get government funding so that they could play God with _________, scientists and bioethicists barnstormed, fibbed, exaggerated, hyped, and caricatured. It was a brutal battle in which truth came second.” “People need a fairy tale.”
Now let’s fill in the blank with “abortion”, “gay marriage”, “diversity”, and countless other progressive agenda items – each of which is based on a lie.
The picture of Christopher Reeve’s is sad to look at.
To think that he was ‘super man’
Mbûkû Kanyau Mbithûka,
He was only a “Super Man” in man made movies. Let us hope and pray that his guilt for promoting such evils was mitigated by the love of God when he stood before him.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Abeca, we were so worried about you! Welcome back, sister. How are you doing?
Thank you sister in Christ. hmmm good days and bad days but still hanging in there. We will see how it goes if I should forgo a small surgery. Thank you for your prayers. I think I have until the end of the month to decide. To many emotions going through me right now, I just pray to make the right choices with the right doctors. God bless you.
All good things to pray about- I was facing major surgery recently+ the doctor put me on new medicine+ I started feeling better+I began rehab=taken off list and doing pretty good. I’ll be praying that God’s perfect will be done in your decision making…there always seems to be conflicting forces that undermine events, right? May God hold you in the palm of His hand.
Thank you Dana, you are in my prayers as well.
Abeca, I’ll put you anonymously on a friend’s extensive prayer list. He’s an old dude who stands around abortion clinics praying.
Thank you Skai God bless you
This kind of “fellow-Catholic baiting” is not something that reflects well on your character or personality, Not My Fellow Catholic. What was the reason you felt the need to insult Anton Seidl personally rather than exchange ideas with him respectfully? People reading this website would be likely to find your comment tedious, childish, churlish, and pointless, which does nothing to enhance the stature of Catholics in the world, your stature on this website, or, since you have stated you are gay, to reflect well on the homosexual community. Why not just be respectful to people and elevate your thinking at the same time? Maybe fewer people would get their backs up when they read your posts.
Look to blacks for the ways they gained ground in their struggle to find equal footing in the world, NMFC; they stated their grievances, and then they shut up, stood tall, walked proudly, and demanded respect. They didn’t stoop to engaging every suspected racist in an exchange of insults.
If you want respect as a gay man, for your fellow homosexuals, or for Catholics as a group in which you claim membership, then act Proudly, not just Loudly. Too many gays, yourself included, are guilty of being entirely too loud and not the least bit quietly proud. You diminish yourself while you are trying to make Anton seem diminished.
Stop with the personal attacks and exchange ideas with us, please, and while you’re at it, think of a less inflammatory pretend name to call yourself. If you’re really proud, use your own baptismal name, if you still have a good name after all these years of picking on others, that is. I don’t like to think of myself as the “fellow” of anyone who calls himself Catholic while flouting Church teachings, sinning openly and aggressively, and snarkily attacking “his” “fellow Catholics.”
God is good; He will forgive you if you are truly penitent; it is harder for the rest of us to do so when you just won’t stop these asinine personal attacks against people. If you want to be considered “our” fellow Catholic, please act like one.
Thank you Ms. Maryanne Leonard.
The thing is though. Homosexuality is never going to be accepted. Here is why, Homosexual tendencies are temptations, like any other temptation, such as stealing or gluttony.
The only difference between, gluttony and homosexual temptation is, there is no organized political group arguing that gluttony is a good thing. No one is selling gluttony as an acceptable public good, because we all know its not.
Homosexuality is not a good thing. The error lies not in the temptation, but the celebration of the temptation.
Acting upon the temptation and giving in to them is what sinks a human being into a broken relationship with God.
Now, selling the temptation as an acceptable good in society is a sin that is even more grave for the responsibility for misleading souls falls upon those that encourage it.
What is a person to do. Simple, go to confession and stop sinning.
Excellent comments Maryanne and MKM
“Homosexual tendencies are temptations, like any other temptation, such as stealing or gluttony.” I don’t think so. Whereas all of us are tempted to steal and possess more than we need, homosexuality is uncommon! The burden of dealing with same sex attractions rests only on the few who have them.
And, there exists a very large and well funded group literally selling gluttony as a good thing: advertising.
Well said, Francis, a rarity. But you kind of glossed over the severity of gayness.
Francis, I can’t believe what you just wrote…you write homosexuality is rare, so why are they changing marriage laws for the vast majority of people for these few? If it’s so rare, why are there endless debates about it on this website. It may affect only about 3% of the population, but because of inordinate pressure brought about by huge amounts of money from hetero-bashers like target, home depot, starbuck’s et al, and generous gifts from other gay activists (probably soros and others that want to knock America off its pegs) they have a disproportionate presence, as even you know way out there on planet blotto. :o)
Francis homosexuality is a disorder
Has nothing whatsoever to do with being gay, Maryanne, nothing whatsoever. Yet you are so obsessed with the topic that you twist every single discussion into a discussion about being gay.
If you want to a look at who is calling who names, read the initial article above. It casts all kinds of professional and personal aspersions upon the scientific community.
You are the obsessed individual YFC… you are on any and all post’s that have the word “gay” or homosexual in it! You are not going to convince any of us that this disordered behavior and lifestyle is anything other then pure unadulterated perversion…you savvy?
Haahaa Melo that’s funny. If you simply read this series of posts and pay attention to their date stamping you will see that you are wrong. It was Maryanne Leonard who raises the gay card at: June 10, 2013 at 10:46 am
Here’s a corollary to Goodwin’s law: As any CCD discussion grows longer, the probability of the gay agenda getting dragged into it approaches unity.
And, a corresponding principle: The first person or group to connect an issue to gay rights or CCC 2357 through 2359 closes the thread and loses the argument, whatever it is.
And, for the mathematically inclined, a lemma: The reason Nazis and the holocaust rarely come up in CCD discussions is because all the chatter about gay this and that diverts attention so reliably.
I’m glad you mentioned the nazi holocaust connection to evolution, Francis, as the eugenicists (the religious extension to ‘belief’ in evolution founded by Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin) acted pretty decisively in propagating survival of the fittest by sterilizing thousands of blacks in the South, enabling Mgt.Sanger, a woman Hitler and Stalin both admired) to open Planned Parenthood clinics in poor Irish, Black and other minority neighborhoods and so on. It was our own govt. that was involved in sterilizing its own people. To believe in evolution is a cosmology just as certainly as the Papua New Guinians’ belief that the sky was a giant sieve that let light in through its holes, or the Navajo’s belief that their ancestors came through a hole in the rocks. It is not science. It’s a belief system that leads its adherents to racism and murder on a mass scale as attested by Stalin, Hitler and Mao. I don’t know why supposedly serious scientific people have become so enmeshed in such a flawed and superstitious pile of nonsense but it looks like it’s going to be taking us down the rabbit black hole yet again. I passed statistics and probabilities many years ago and the only thing I learned Francis, was not to waste my money buying lottery tickets. You’re probably right about how we eventually begin the gay discussion at a certain point. hahaha
“To believe in evolution is a cosmology…” This depends on how you understand “believe.” The approved translation of the Nicene creed translates Latin “credo” into “I believe” but from the patristics it is clear that the intended meaning is closer to “my faith is in” or “I completely trust.” If trust is what you have in mind, I agree at least to the point that there is no thing, concept or fact worthy of such trust. Only God is worthy of that.
Many moderns understand “belief” as “intellectual assent.” Like: “I believe 2+2=4” or similar clearly “true” statements. This leads many to reject our faith, thinking it demands intellectual assent of ideas that are incredible. If intellectual assen is your intended meaning, I disagree totally. Noticing that evolution is a principle which, once understood, is just as obvious and true as 2+2=4, then giving it the intellectual assent it deserves, is NOT a cosmology, and does not lead to the atrocities of the 20th and 21st centuries. Confusing fact and faith is what leads to atrocities like Fascism and religious warfare.
Francis erroneously or seditiously writes: “This depends on how you understand “believe.”” Can a more clear example of relativism be found anywhere? Francis, you should be teaching in some Jesuit seminary, a graduate course on how to fine tune the concept of “jesuitical”. Do you realize how slick your rhetoric is? It’s like molten teflon.
Mbûkû Kanyau Mbithûka,
“Not only those who do such things, but those who support them shall perish” St. Paul.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
“Almost immediately leading stem cell scientists abandoned embryonic stem cell research.”
That is exactly what’s SUPPOSED to happen when scientific investigation is healthy. All over the world of science, theories are continually overturned, techniques outdated, paradigms proven inadequate. And, even though individual scientists have made massive personal investment in the comfortable “old” way of doing things, they ABANDON what doesn’t makes sense or doesn’t work for something that works better.
As scientists tackle more and more difficult problems, it is inevitable that it will take increasingly more money and bigger cooperating teams to make the next big change. Compare, for example, the approximately $1,000,000,000 it costs to bring a new drug to market, orders of magnitude greater than what was required a few decades ago. Semiconductor fabrication operates on an even bigger scale. When multinational for-profit corporations get involved and more money is at stake, the tempations are greater as well. The corporations and venture capitalists, with billions already invested, pushed government for ESCR more than anyone else. And hurry lest somebody else beats the US to market! What we’re seing isn’t a failure of science but of the God-created humans who try to carry it out despite appalling conflicts of interest.
So, what is it that keeps the enterprise of science from collapsing under a mountain of money? Isn’t it ironic how science, so often seen as the engine of atheism, needs a power greater than itself to be healthy!
Nice try, Francis, but science labs run rife with fraudulant operations … because they live on grant money, and have to come up with results that make the grant agents happy.
LOL!…good show Skai!…stonewall that rubbish!
Skai, while you trash talk science and scientists, keep in mind that it may well be science that is helping Abeca Christian get better.
YFC, you do not understand what science is. I’m trash talking the pseudo-science nonsense you people conjure up.
Keep trying Skai, keep trying. The uber conservatives are proving post by post the intellectual vacuousness of their approach to science. It would be interesting if just one person would say in the same sentence, “I go to a TLM Mass, and I believe that climate change, evolution, economics, psychology, and physiology are real sciences and I accept the principle concepts of each branch of knowledge.” It seems unfortunate, however, that most people on this website are content with the state of knowledge AND liturgy that we enjoyed in the 16th century.
“I’m trash talking the pseudo-science nonsense you people CONJURE UP.” [my cap’s] This reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke’s 3rd law of prediction: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
False argument, YFC. You’re accusing me of being against science. No, I’m for science, but not for claims that some theories are science when they’re not. “Climate change” is not science but theory and is being debunked as we speak.
In fact, “climate change” is not even theory, but hypothesis, which has been pushed because of what is known as hoodwinking for money and power … and of course gay sex motives.
There is much in what you say, Francis. I’m glad I’m not involved in it…especially when the drugs that took so long to develop are discovered to cause problems and then the lawyers start crawling out from under their cushy rocks. And Skai is right also, as we saw not that long ago with the global warming email scandal. They”re right back on their hobby horse because they know most people have already forgotten those pesky emails. There’s a name for that 6 mo. timeframe they give for the public’s memory of various crimes and misdemeanors…that’s why Wiener thought he’d try running again. If his political rivals didn’t mention the old scandal, he probably could have pulled it off.
Hold the presses. Wiener is leading all the opposition. Apparently the only real qualification democrats demand is the candidate be alive and kicking. He or she can be for killing babies, taking drugs, hating God, hating traditional marriage, gun control, police state tactics like spying on ordinary citizens and frisking them and treating them like criminals in airports and amnesty for illegal aliens , especially if they’re drug lords or sexual deviants, but I suppose they might draw the line at supporting anyone who supports life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness (as opposed to licentiousness). It still boggles my mind how anyone with a claim to morality,intelligence and/or commonsense could possibly want to be part of this madness. What am I missing here? Is this what happened in the 1930’s…this disconnect between what really is and what a misguided majority THINK is reality? Don’t they sometimes take the time to ponder what they are truly doing and where it is leading?
He did pull it off, that was his problem.
YFC appears to be to me a rather embittered, deeply unhappy troll who tries in his (or her) pathetic way to roil the waters in order to try and stick his (or her) finger in the collective eye of those who post here, and does so in the hopes of getting a “rise” out of whoever posts here,knowing that in the main, they’re all going to be pretty well grounded in their Catholic faith. That’s what I take away. As to the “true believers” in embryonic stem cell therapy who persist in their quixotic hope that they’ll FINALLY have a breakthrough, one has only to follow the MONEY TRAIL. As usual with some scientists, filthy lucre is the main inspiration for continuing along the same failed trail. GOD BLESS ALL, MARKRITE
Perhaps I’ve misread somebody’s post, but it doesn’t look like anyone is defending ESCR, including YFC. I still don’t understand how this issue could possibly get entangled with gay-rights matters.
No doubt there are still a few die-hard researchers who have remaining funds to support their ESCR research, and I don’t see any proof that they’ll never create some medical marvel from their work. My personal expectation is that adult cell research will overshadow ESCR, despite emerging questions about Yamanaka’s research. That’s an expectation, not a statement about morality!
Francis, your level of ranting about science needs a whole lot of work before you can tackle real Catholicism. Like pseudo-scientist JonJ, you revel in minutia and attempt to generalize it up to the level of religion. It only makes you look silly, Francis. When you really don’t know much about something, don’t you see it as folly to put on as if you do?
“When you really don’t know much about something, don’t you see it as folly to put on as if you do?” Absolutely, totally agree with you.
Well, then, Francis, you should practice what you preach.
You say this, markrite, because I believe in science? And what accounts for your own embitterment?
Francis says you can’t believe in science YFC. teehee But YFC, you might ask Francis for me how he balances his belief in the One God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and in the next breath he assents to evolution. Jesus is called the New Adam…and refers back to Adam and Eve. Was He lying? Is the Bible a book of lies? No one knows how long it took God to create the universe, but we do know He made it, and we do know he created Adam and Eve. You cannot believe in two opposing view points simultaneously except when it is called schizophrenia, a term that truly describes the age in which we live. That’s where faith comes in..’for now we only see but through a glass darkly’ but by faith, we know the Bible is the inerrant word of God. A true believer isn’t never threatened by authentic science for it can only prove what is true. Too many people confuse science with technology …it’s unfortunate that it was severed from its family, religion and philosophy, for you really need the three to understand the universe. Science may tell how, but it can never tell why. Without asking why, what’s the point of knowledge?
Also. I find people with scientific backgrounds unintentionally amusing as they posture and preen themselves on their superior knowledge and brilliance. Whenever any exclusive group invents its own symbols and vocabulary they restrict insights from other avenues of learning and quite naturally it isn’t long before no one knows what they’re talking about …that doesn’t mean they’re any more intelligent, just insulated against criticism . I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a scientist, nor am I particularly smart…but I am wise enough to admit it and to trust in the wisdom of God rather than that of men. Actually, when I want to truly capture the heart and mind of the average scientist, I have only hearken back to the first atomic bomb explosion. All these big brains working day and night sweating to beat the clock to force Japan into surrender etc and finally the big day arrives…ten nine eight seven six ( duh what comes after six?) They exploded it not knowing whether it might set off a sequence of further explosions and blow up our whole planet, but as we all know, they did it anyway…and to me this is the intelligence you all so admire. Sure, we lucked out, but my point is the average science schmuck is as limited as a flea on the backend of a baboon, as are we all that think we know more than God. Pope Benedict Emeritus is to me the shining example of true genius and he’s one of the most humble men on this earth. Typed with one finger!
Sorry, it’s me not anonymous !
“They exploded it not knowing whether it might set off a sequence of further explosions and blow up our whole planet,…” Two of those physicists were my professors in college. The calculations showing that N-N fission would not happen have since been declassified and can be viewed by anyone.
Isn’t it strange, how people still wonder about my teachers’ collective wisdom conducting an experiment that “could” have caused world-wide catastrophe if they were “extravagently wrong” (to use the report’s language)? Many people think it is perfectly wise to conduct the current world-wide experiment of doubling or tripling atmospheric CO2, even though scientists now say there WILL be a disaster unless they are extravagently wrong.
If we DO KNOW he cerated Adam and Eve, then how can you say we don;t know how long it took God to create earth? It took Seven Days!
Either you believe Scripture is literally true or you do not believe scripture is literally true. Which do you prefer?
“Either you believe Scripture is literally true or you do not believe scripture is literally true.” This, YFC, is a false statement. One does not have to submit to either of these propositions, which are designed to subject one to tyranny. YFC, follow Jesus instead of the gay agenda.
Skai, once again you twist everything into an anti-gay rant without logic.
Your comment of 5:36pm raises a lot of questions. Since it’s almost my bedtime, I’ll start from the top, and try to explain a few things about how the world I inhabit might be very different from yours.
“… balances his belief in the One God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and in the next breath he assents to evolution…” There’s no balancing here at all. For me to reject the fact that God made a world where evolution, genetic variation and natural selection are not only possible but a critical part of creation, would be to reject God. But that’s just me. Your experience may be different and your mileage may vary.
“Is the Bible a book of lies?” No, but it definitely is not a history book (though it contains some history), nor a biology book (though some authors comment on biological topics), nor an astrophysics book (though there’s mention of sky and stars).
“…we do know he created Adam and Eve.” This may be a point where we disagree most starkly. Whether “Adam and Eve” are historical characters or not, has nothing to do with whether or how I trust God to be my God through eternity. Perhaps you are convinced that God intervened directly into history, to create one man named Adam, and one woman named Eve who are the sole genetic ancestors to all 7 billion of us. If so, you would be not at all alone, yet I find it highly unlikely. Do you believe there is room in this One Holy and Apostolic Church for people with both belief systems? Are you willing to accept that some of us have very good reasons for our beliefs, and that God could be in some regards more immediately and intensely real to us than He is to you?
Catholics are permitted to believe in evolution of the human body, but not of the soul. Catholics must believe, though, that all humans come from a common ancestor. Polygenesis is a heresy.
Francis, your rant is pure relativism, pure conjecture, a religion which exalts impersonal deism, not Catholicism. You’re taking guesswork and basing your “wisdom” on it. God could do anything, but He does not do everything seems to be unacceptable to you. You rant up evolution but you have not one single bit of proof. This means you are making evolution a religion, a faith, a belief. But science is not faith, Francis, rather it is knowledge. If you want to believe in something, then why don’t you choose Jesus Christ? The Bible does not have inaccurate historical sections, Francis; the problem is you, and that you do not have the grace to understand what it says historically or otherwise. It confuses you, but Jesus tells us something about those who don’t believe in Him will be confused. So, you convict yourself of lack of true faith. But go right ahead with your groundless speculation that evolution is real, and let any idea that knocks on your door come into your house … after all, it’s God’s plan, right?
I think we agree that appearance of the soul and the connection between Original Sin and self-awareness are entirely spearate matters from evolution of the human species.
“Catholics must believe, though, that all humans come from a common ancestor. Polygenesis is a heresy.” Is there a dogmatic statement on polygenesis that Catholics “must” believe? I don’t think there is. The Wikipedia article, “Catholic Church and Evolution” has a nice collection with up to date references back to the sources. (Please, no rants about Wikipedia, just follow the links to the sources.)
Francis, all you’re posting is the major media hype. They come out with a new angle about every five years. Science is not the memorization of what one reads, but the attainment and logical use of knowledge.
Catholics are not permitted to believe in anything other than God, Anonymous. Believing in evolution is a faith, not a science. Now if you were to use the word “hypothesis” instead of belief, you would be ok. You have a really poor command of language … do some study, perhaps for once in your life. Your mental process on this blog site is not what is called learning, rather it is called running with every breeze that comes your way. Learning requires the use of fact and logic, at least higher learning requires this. When you fail to overcome an argument against one of your positions, instead of digging in to find out the truth, what you do is turn tail and run.
Skai, it seemed for a couple of days that you calmed down and started treating others with a certain amount of respect, but the way you are writing today makes me think you are back to your old ways of really harsh personal attacks and insults against other people, and you never do quite get around to making an argument that stands on its own that arrives at a conclusion that is different from the insulted commenter.
It might be a good thing to remember that people deserve to be treated with respect even if you disagree with them. In fact, I think I read something about that in the CCC, and also in the speeches recently of Pope Francis.
If you are right about something, show us some of the superior logic that you claim to possess, rather than personal attacks.
The Church has taught…(although it’s not a dogma of the faith), that prior to the “fall” of man…in the Garden of Eden…the lion could lay with the lamb…animal predation was non-existent, stinging insects, venomous serpent’s and the traumatogenic effects of biting animals were non-existant…the animal kingdom was not dangerous to man…fear of it was unknown. Only after man transgressed, did the natural order of the animal kingdom become altered…I’m not saying this is the case…just something to reflect on…a priest shared that information with me many years ago…I reflect on it occasionally…though I’m a scientist I don’t poo-poo it…
YFC, my posts concerning you engage your posts. When your posts get absurd, then I make it said. When your posts indicate some rationality, then I congratulate you.
Adamantine, “The Church has taught…(although it’s not a dogma of the faith), that prior to the “fall” of man…in the Garden of Eden…the lion could lay with the lamb” … ahem dude … Scripture shows this conditon to be prophetic and not Edenic. Let’s see you come up with the reference source for your claim … no way will you find it.
Oops, Adamantine, looks like I got it wrong (YFC, fyi, it’s the first mistake I’ve ever made). In the Garden, Adam went around naming flora and fauna, or at least fauna. So the prophetic verses that refer to lions lying down with lambs and serpents with babies … well, now hold on here: there were not babies in Eden. So, no wonder the idea you put forth is not dogma. Now, when we try to understand prophetic Scriptures, there are various things we have to do, one of which is to discount our sense of chronology aka sequential thinking. Prophesy is not necessarily and not even usually chronological or historical, but profound. Prophesy at its best looks at nature and supernature of man and God, which is not the same as trying to guess what may happen next. Dangerous to confuse prophesy with speculation.
Was the dog a result of man domesticating the wolf? Or was the wolf the result of dogs morphing after the Fall? This may sound like the old “egg or chicken first” puzzle, but it is a different realm of question. Why is such a question important? Because the evolutionists have constructed a theoretical reality to explain everything, and what this is used for by rulers is to persuade people towards the goals of the rulers. If one can put forth a question that confounds the evolutionists, then one thwarts the machinations of the rulers who would use false claims in his or her ruling. This helps explain also why the Church is so careful about declaring something to be fact … Maybe the Church learned the lesson in the course of the Gallileo confab, where Church rulers were, perhaps like the Jesuits today, were using common belief with no proven foundation to manipulate the laity and clergy. Manipulation is not the way God wills the popes and bishops to preach the Gospel and discipline the nations.
Francis, Humani Generis Pope Pius XII no. 37
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
Anonymous, regarding your 12:56pm comment:
Yes, in 1950 Pius XII clearly denounced polygenesis in Humanii Generis. However, don’t you think, as have many theologians have, that “Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled…” is a statement contingent on it remaining apparent that no available opinion is available? If a new formulation can be reconciled with the doctrine of Original Sin, than that could be acceptable.
In an article published in L’Osservatore Romano’s Weekly Edition in English, 17 April 1969, page 5, Roberto Masi explains the approach I personally find most sensible because it ties the Catholic principle of solidarity with Original Sin:
“Or it is possible to admit a biological polygenism and a theological monogenism. Evolution brought about not a single couple but many men, who constituted the primitive human population. One of these, who may be considered the leader, rebelled against God. This sin passed on to all men, his contemporaries, not by imitation, but by real propagation (Council of Trent Session V, DS. 1513), that is by a real solidarity already existing in this primordial human population. In them actual sinful humanity has its origin.”
Further regarding polygenesis, I think it is worth pointing out that one reason the Church of the mid-20th century resisted this position is that it was historically intertwined with racism. If physically separated proto-human populations existed and only one pair committed Original Sin, then there could be ethnic groups who are not subject to it (or so the logic goes). This would make some people “better” than others. Modern evolutionary polygenesis or polygenerism refers to a community in solidarity (to use the Catholic word for it), not genetically isolated groups evolving in parallel.
Dana, you are a catholic convert. Consequently, I am not surprised you do not know the Catholic Church’s position on Evolution.
The most recent teaching on this subject is John Paul II’s “Truth cannot Contradict Truth”. In it, JPII teaches that there is no conflict between Catholic faith and evolutionary theory—as long as the proponent of evolution does not assert that the soul arose from mechanistic processes.
BTW, JPII spoke with great respect for scientists and the theory of Evolution, stating that the large quantity of evidence supporting evolution from multiple independent fields establishes it as “more than a hypothesis”.
Dana, your anti-evolution belief that see it as incompatible with faith is a protestant view—an opinion you share with fellow convert Skai. Far be it from me to deny anyone the right to disagree with non-infallible Church teaching. But, you do need to realize your opinion in this matter is not shared by the Magesterium.
Notice that Bl JPII says the theory of evolution is a theory, not a fact, not science, but a theory?? Did you notice that, JonJ?? Notice that he said “as long as it does not conflict” with Church dogma? No pope has pushed the theory of evolution. No pope has claimed that the theory of evolution is valid. JonJ, can you comprehend this?
I’m finding it so tiresome that Skai keeps making stuff up out of you-know-what and claims his ideas have a basis in fact. Or worse, he self-assigns himself a papal imprimatur. Unlike his “gene pooling” claim, there really is a Wikipedia article titled “Catholic Church and evolution” and it contains links to Vatican sources and to verifiable facts of history.
Quote one of the John Paul II section, in direct contradiction to Skai’s claim about “as long as it does not conflict” goes: “there IS NO conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation.” (cap’s are mine) The statement is unequivocal. It doesn’t say 2+2=4 is just a theory, and it doesn’t say evolution is just a theory. It does state that the scientific results he was able to review are not in conflict with Catholic doctrine. There’s nothing wrong with Skai believing whatever he wants to believe about evolution, but he has no business claiming that JPII was as badly informed as he is.
Further part of the same quote: “Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as MORE THAN a hypothesis.” (cap’s are mine) JPII said exactly the opposite of what Skai claims he said: He said it’s science, he said there are facts, and he said it is more than a hypothesis. He doesn’t say Catholics have to believe it, any more than Catholics are obliged to believe that 2+2=4 or that Rome is south of Munich.
The Church approves ADULT stem cell research.
EMBROYNIC stem cell research requires the KILLING of a human being, and can never be approved.
See: “Endowment for Human Development” on the internet.
I’m a devout Catholic and scientist…a mineralogist academically, and gemologist by avocation…oooooh, nice
You write like a scientist and not like JonJ who writes like a legal specialist or Francis who writes like a polished relativist. Not trying to be the judge here, but to press an observation.
Cone snails…these are a wonderful example of environmental plasticity…in the family Conidae, you have approximately 500 plus species of cone snail. All are venomous, but most are sub-lethal…a half dozen or so are extremely toxic and can paralyze and asphyxiate a diver, who carelessly handles one, he could be stung with a chitnous harpoon, loaded with the nerve toxin found in the venom…these “protein peptides” are known to undergo “plasticity”… one species of Conus striatus found off the coast of Mozambique, may be more toxic then the same species found off the coast of Oahu or Guam…why?…same species, right?…yet isolated protein molecules are known to chemically vary, or change throughout the tropical indo-pacific…
One more thing…the spectacular and omnivorous Tiger Cowry (Cypraea tigris), apparently has evolved (plasticity again) a certain immunity to conotoxin…it appears they seemingly die after being stung by a known aggressive molluscivore, like Conus textile, and after being stung in a tank in the Honolulu Aquarium, they roll over and become reconstituted within an hour…slowly data has come in that they may even have developed a wonderful “defense mechanism” against the predatory onslaught of conus…sulfuric acid may be produced and excreted by the mantle flaps, in order to repulse predation…coincidentally, the Tiger cowry feeds day and night souring the reef, most cones are nocturnal and all are predatory…yet the Tiger Cowry grows to huge size, especially the subspecies in Hawaii ( schilderiana)!…look at all of these factors for success…chemical defense mechanism…large size, omnivorous diet and immunity to a highly toxic venom…couple that with a probable. chemical “defense mechanism” and you have sure fire recipe for zoological success!…It is a very large, heavy Cowry, with a broad geographical distribution…and may even be expanding!…
“… evolved (plasticity again) … “: Whatever happened to the scientific term “gene pooling”, which is easily observable and is not evolution? I suspect the term “plasticity” refers to gene pooling.
what is gene pooling? I’m a geneticist and I’ve never heard that term. The concept of a gene pool is a somewhat loose term used in popular discussions of genetics, to connote all the possible combinations of genetic variants within a population, but there is no concept in professional genetics or even in popular science of some idea that genes “pool”. At least not that I’m aware.
And since it’s summer, I just advise everyone to be careful when jumping into the shallow end of the gene pool.
LOL!…that was amusing Skai…
Gene pool refers to the observable genetic morphing found in living things. Animal breeders demonstrate it as do plant breeders. The term can be used to distinguish between fact and evolution theory. BTW, an Old Testament story demonstrates gene pooling; the story of Jacob and the sheep given him by Laban. God told Jacob to make a specific object and that the sheep would line up according and breed in distinct groups. The result produced sheep of several (two, I recall) solid coloring instead of mixed colors.
Wikipedia has an article on gene pooling. It quickly states that many believe that gene pooling is the basis for evolution. But again there is no missing link, and thus no facts to bring the theory of evolution out of the dark ages.
From Wikipedia: “The page “Gene pooling” does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.”
Are you SURE you didn’t make that up?
Googling “gene pooling” gets 60,000 results. The wiki article is headed “gene pool”, and is the first one in the google list.
So you misquoted the title of the article, making it impossible to follow your twisted trail of illogic. The “gene pool” article does not state “many believe that gene pooling is the basis for evolution” as you claimed It says ‘The gene pool … proves to be the basic level at which evolution occurs.”
Here’s why I’m upset: You made a claim which is fundamentally not true, then you misdirect your critics with reference to a “source” which either doesn’t exist or whose meaning you have severely distorted. If you were a scientist, you’d be kicked out of grad school for such obviously fraudulent behavior.
And you have the chutzpah to say “science labs run rife with fraudulant operations .” Refer to Mt 7:3-5.
Francis and a few others like to tell me that I make stuff up. Whether I do or not is irrelevant, because these people cannot provide an argument that defeats the arguments I’m making. What I do that they do not do is learn. I know how to learn; Francis knows how to be stubborn and not learn. Catholicism provides the soul with the ability to learn, and the basis for this is humility. First step is to admit that one does not know for sure. Second step is to identify obvious facts; if you do not know what I’m talking about at this point, then you might as well go back to watching commercials on TV which will reinforce your sentiment that the way you’ve been programmed is correct. The Church leadership made this mistake in spades with the famous Gallileo event. At some point the Church found itself in a quagmire of absurdity and had to humble itself and go back and re-read the likes of St Thomas Aquinas. Those who failed his course are those who tried listing all the truths he came up with; those who passed are the ones who learned how he came up with those truths. It is called argument. Reasoning was not invented in the western world, but it was developed into a science by the west beginning with Socrates and Plato, advancing in one big leap for mankind with Aristotle and then percolating to the top where St Thomas got ahold of it and created something that all subsequent reasoners rely on: The Church is founded on a man, Peter, whose reason is the cornerstone, Jesus Christ. Aristotle was the logician for Alexander the Great, and Jesus was the Logos for St Thomas Aquinas. The took the human mind and optimized its capacity; later science and philosophy and theology dance in that light.
Dangerous to confuse prophecy with speculation?…Did you read what I said?…or are you just playing a game of oneups-manship?
One upmanship, as you’ll note in a subsequent blog. Nope, just kidding. What I am getting at is that legalism and interpretation are not the only aspects of Scripture that are important. Insight into nature and supernature is important and cannot be engaged when standing on law or quibbling over interpretation.
There should be no quibbling over interpretation of the Bible,
and the “CCC 2nd Ed” is only about 20 years old so its easy to understand in our language.
The Magisterium interprets the Bible for us in the teachings of the Church contained in the CCC,
For those who may not have read the CCC – per Pope John Paul II, it contains the Doctrine of the Faith. Footnotes allow us to go back to corresponding Bible passages and other teachings from the Magisterium.
CCC: ” 85 The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone.
Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. “
Mandy, are you aware of the fact that each reader of any book interprets it a little bit or a whole lot different from any other reader? Do you know that you could read a magisterial document and someone else could read the same document and you’d both see it a bit differently? I’m more and more astonished that so many people have no idea that when they read something, they are interpreting. BTW, the final authority this side of Heaven is the pope, not the magisterium, in that without the pope issuing the final judgment the rest of whatever the magisterium consists of has no authority. Written material has no, zero, nada, zip authority … all the authority is vested in the pope … Jesus founded His Church on the first pope, which foundation is each pope in succession. You can burn every last Church document and the Church will continue. But without a pope the Church will disappear … which is why the popes are part of the guarantee given us by Jesus. St Paul was individually educated in Heaven and yet submitted to the Pope, even though St Paul writes that we should follow the tradition handed down by the apostles … do you think St Paul was isolating his teachings from the pope? Or do you think he was showing us that the pope is the essential part of the traditions that the Church is charged with passing down from one to the succeeding generations? The catechisms come and go. The Bible stays and the magisterial writings stay. But even these books are subject to the pope. It is a protestant fantasy that the Bible speaks to us. It does not. God speaks to us, and does so sometimes while we read the Bible, or even the CCC. The Church did fine for several centuries without either the Bible or the CCC. It is a nice study tool, but it does not give you the truth. The Truth is Jesus … who gives us the ability to study and learn about Him and about us through the CCC. We do not get Jesus in the CCC; we get Him in the Holy Eucharist. When is the last time you ate a page from your copy of the CCC? If you did that, did you notice any union with God? I’m belaboring my point for a reason; maybe some day someone might figure out what I’m talking about. And those who think I make this stuff up, such as the Capital Letter Boyz, it simply shows everyone how ignorant and proud of it they are.
Dr. Ross Nigrelli, S.J., was a renowned icthyologist, and Jesuit priest…his specialty was coral reef fishes of the west indies…especially those in the family Serranidae, and gauging the effect of the reef, based upon the number of grouper that inhabited these cnidarian ecosystem’s…he was a renowned taxonomist and fish pathologist, and classified many of the bony and cartilaginous fishes for the Coney Island Aquarium and the American Museum of Natural History…he was a holy, pious priest who died many years ago…he was a contemporary and colleague of Dr. Bruce W. Halstead, the world renowned marine bio- toxicologist from California.
So, Adamantine, you’re saying that that priest worked on the movie, Jaws?
No, as far as i know, he had no involvement with Jaws, or any of it’s sequels…he was involved in fish taxonomy…Dr. Castex from Argentina was also a Jesuit Priest and zoologist…he was this hemispheres leading authority on freshwater stingray, that inhabit many of the tributaries of the Amazon…many natives in Brazil go in fear of Potamatrygon motoro, much the way south seas islanders and natives from the coast of Mozambique go in fear of the stonefish (synancejidae)…which is called “Sherowa” by the natives of the coastal city Pinda
Adamantine, Jaws was a fish, or actually a stage prop of a fish … a particularly cartilegenous fish (I’m happy you can spell that right). As for cultural fear of sea creatures, for their poison, yeah I can relate that to land creatures I’ve run into not infrequently. In both cases none of these creatures has legs.
Almost all livings things…life itself is a molecular arrangement of water…coupled with other various elements…that become the formation of our “physical” existence…
Adamantine, Jesus tells us that the life is in the blood, not in the water as the Mormons would have it.
Adamantine, have you read Genesis 1 in Hebrew? It gives the fullness of what you are talking about with water and life. It does it in stark poetic terms that have more power than any other treatment on the topic one could ever come up with. It is worth it, that one verse, to learn how to read ancient Hebrew.
Baze’ stated, “the sight of an enraged charging Bengal Tiger, whilst roaring it’s displeasure is the most terrifying image the animal kingdom has to offer”…I’m inclined to agree…stripes is a beautiful, awe-inspiring example of a terrestrial apex predator…I have had the pleasure of speaking to an Indian priest from Goa, who stated that he witnessed a pack of Dhole (Cuon alpinus), put a tigress to flight back in the 60’s, in a small village near Peramba. Seems like the majestic sub-continent of India is teeming with creatures “dangerous to man”…
LUKE 12: 4-5
4 “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more.
5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.”
“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Life is short. Save your Soul for eternity, and the Souls of others.
Love God, and your neighbors. Repent of your sins.
Be obedient to the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals (as stated in their CCC).
This is what is important.
Someone please explain why the Church existed prior to the publication of the second and revised edition of the CCC. Could it have been some sort of miracle? But I’m really glad we now have the CCC so we no longer have to guess what to believe, since it tells us in no uncertain terms. Why it is so clear that one can only wonder why it contains references to actual magisterial works; maybe that is to impress us.
I have shared those exact biblical quotes with Seventh Day Adventist’s Mandy…and let me tell you…boy-oh-boy, they don’t like it!…proves that the soul and body CAN be separated… sda’s believe the 2 cannot, and are one, they believe the 2 can never be separated…also proves their theology is rubbish…pure and simple…Catholic’s are the “A” team…the new “chosen people”