LifeSiteNews | Matthew C. Hoffman | Feb. 4, 2008
A federal appeals court panel has upheld a Massachusetts policy of indoctrinating elementary school students with pro-homosexual attitudes without their parents consent.
The three judge panel ruled that a lower court decision was correct when it denied parents the right to remove their children from such classes, while admitting that the purpose of the literature to which their children were being exposed was to influence children to “tolerate” gay marriage.
“It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage,” the court admits. “That was the point of why that book was chosen and used.”
However, in the appeals court’s opinion, this doesn’t mean the children were being indoctrinated with anything. “Even assuming there is a continuum along which an intent to influence could become an attempt to indoctrinate, however, this case is firmly on the influence-toward-tolerance end. There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that Joey was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a student to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free exercise rights.”
The book referred to by the panel, “King and King”, depicts a “prince” who isn’t interested in a princess, but instead is “in love” with the princess’ brother. Their “love” is portrayed in a sympathetic manner, and the two “marry” each other. They are shown kissing on the lips at the end of the book, which was read to second graders in 2006 in Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts.
Two families complained to the school district, which responded that the school district was not obligated to advise families about such matters, and would not allow parents to opt-out. David Parker and other parents with children in the school district responded by filing a federal civil rights lawsuit. After the suit was dismissed by Federal District Judge Mark L. Wolf in early 2007, the parents appealed. Now, the Federal appeals court has rejected their appeal.
However, the families are determined to press on all the way to the Supreme Court, which is the next step in the appeals process. “We are fully committed to go forward,” Jeffrey Denner, lead attorney of the Parker legal team, told the pro-family group Mass Resistance. “We will continue to fight on all fronts that we need to.”
. . . more
Back in the 1980’s, the school board in Santa Barbara,CA was going to distribute condoms in the high schools. The Evangelical Orthodox community there, headed by Fr. Peter Gilquist, threatened to pull all of their children out of the system and homeschool them. Facing the hundreds of thousands of dollars to be lost by the district, the school board relented. If these parents are outraged enough they should do something drastic.
David, of course then the parents would have to actually care for their children and teach them and comply with the intrusive home-school laws in Massachusettes which require local school principals to review and approve the curriculum and lesson plans as well as validate the ‘satisfactory progress’ of the children.
You can bet your sweet bippy that if the children were withdrawn as a protest to the homosexual agenda, there would be extra scrutiny applied–up to and including use of legal force to compel the children back to the public schools perhaps even to sever parental rights.
If anyone wants to take the homeschooling route, they had better be a member of Home School Legal Defense Association first because they will be going to court. Massachusettes already tends to regard homeschooling as a violation of the state’s right to indoctrinate children.
I believe that in the future one of the most crucial ministries of Orthodox Christians will be to provide an alternate and much higher quality school system for our children and others seeking classical education and moral formation. The only way to break the public school systems of their power of indoctrination is to deprive them of students and funds.
Fr. John, a great way (violently opposed by the Democrats, all the teachers’ unions, and the indoctrination-embracing leftists) to bring about your recommendation is to use free-market principles and competition to break the iron hold of the public school systems around the country. The best way to do this is to allow a universal voucher system that makes private school education affordable for all parents and empowers parents (especially the poor and the middle class) to shop around for the best possible schools for their children. It is truly criminal to see how public school systems continue to have a virtual monopoly on the education system and significantly contribute to the destuction of so many lives and the dumbing down of our entire society by “graduating” hundreds of thousands of illiterate and poorly educated adults every year. Shameful!
As an Orthodox Christian and public high school History teacher, I wish there was an Orthodox High School where I could teach. Chris’ posting about “vouchers” says it all. The liberals say they’re “pro-choice”, that is, as long as you “choose” to do it their way. They prefer to indoctrinate the youth with atheistic, relativistic, and morally corrupt ideas.
Herein lies the foolishness of liberal thinking:
They want everyone to be treated fairly. Yet they reject the notion of the existence of God. They believe in Darwin’s Origin of Species and Superiority of the Races , a contradiction in their belief system. There is no foundation for loving your fellow man.
Imagine if they taught in the schools that all of mankind was created “in the image of God”, and should be treated as such. What would happen to crime, violence, etc.?
Actually, at least in the U.S., most liberals do believe in God. And I doubt that you’ll find many mainstream liberals at all who espouse a strong belief in “superiority of the races,” if by that you mean that one racial group is superior to another–you’ll actually find more conservatives who think that.
Further, it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that one cannot believe in a God and also believe in evolution. In fact, in practice, most people who believe in evolution also believe in God. (For example, many believe that if God is all-powerful, then he or she can create evolution.) It’s true that few atheists believe in Adam and Eve, but then, there are all kinds of religious folks who don’t, either.
Phil, “Evolution” as defined by the Grand Darwinists cannot have been created or be directed by anyone. They claim that chaos and random actions alone brought about life, sentience, and complex super-structures.
Furthermore, God’s eternal energy and will needs to continually act on all life and sustain it. Matter is not self-directed and life cannot exist indepedently apart from its Creator. If God withdrew from Creation everything would cease to exist in an instant. So claiming that “evolution” is this fuzzy entity (process) that God created and exists apart from His creative power and will is impossible. The fact that so many Christians and liberals believe this nonsense is a testament to the widespread misinformation and myths spread by the Darwinist Cult Followers and the lack of deep and critical thinking skills so prevalent in higher education and in so many areas of science. (Interestingly enough no experiement known to science has actually proven, explained, or shown how “macro-evolution” works and how simple cells or any organisms “evolve” in more complex super-structure — or different species — by pure chance and random action.)
It is yet another example of indoctination and the failure of the Church to teach the reality of creation and our place in it.
Phil, come on. It is impossible to accept evolution as it is taught by the scientistic crowd without also accepting philosophical naturalism. Philisophical naturalism is in every way antithethical to genuine faith in a living God.
The theistic evolution you describe is nothing more than an unwillingness to commit. It is a vain and fearful attempt to satisfy everybody by creating a fence that doesn’t exist. It doesn’t work.
Since people are quite capable of seeming to hold mutually exclusive beliefs, it is not surprising that a lot of folks claim a belief in both God and evolution. In reality they know neither one. Your post is just sophistry on your part. You must have been half asleep when you wrote it.
Note 6.
Nope. To assert this shows you don’t understand the philosophical underpinnings of evolution. Go back and do your homework.
Michael writes: “It is impossible to accept evolution as it is taught by the scientistic crowd without also accepting philosophical naturalism. Philisophical naturalism is in every way antithethical to genuine faith in a living God.”
Fr. Hans writes about ” . . . the philosophical underpinnings of evolution. Go back and do your homework.”
In recent years there has been a greater rejection of Darwin by conservatives in general, even by people who in general have little or no interest in religion. I recently came across a fascinating article that discusses this trend.
The interesting thing is that it’s written by a conservative, and published in a conservative journal. Check out “Origins of the Specious” by Ronald Bailey:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30329.html
The false dichotomy is the belief that God, if there is one, is separate and un-concerned with His creation. That is the only belief in God that is compatible with any type of evolution. However, to believe in such a god is tantamount to believing in no God at all.
RE: #3. Fr. John, the public school mentality and the belief in the superiority of the “professional educator” is quite strong within the Church. Except for ethnically based schools, Orthodox education will not flourish until that changes. Until parents decide to take reponsibility for the growth and development of their own children in the faith rather than putting secular and worldly goals as a higher priority there can be no such thing as Orthodox schools. Frankly, I don’t see any hope of that happening in my lifetime.
Until we, as adults, begin to address the world and the culture around us from a throughly Orthodox foundation, we don’t have anything to teach anyway. We are too passive, too individualistic, too oriented toward clericalism, too polite. Unless and until we begin to understand and live a mature Orthodox way of life in this country (not dependent on the proverbial, largely mythic ‘mother’ churches), we have nothing to teach.
We will either step out of our self-created, un-Biblical, anacronistic, miasmic ethno-centric delusion, or we won’t have any children to teach in any case.
You are right, the Church has the antidote for what ails us–Jesus Christ in His fullness. We have to actually believe in Him and follow the words spoken at our Holy Baptism before we have anything to teach to our children except worldly garbage.
Forgive my arrogance, Father, for I surely violate these standards most of all, but we must respond as we are called and not as the world teaches. Living the life of the Church with love and consciousness is the best school there is. We do not need to re-create stuff in the image of the world.
If we teach our children even a small portion of the following, we have done well:
The Elder Sophrony
Phil wrote:
“Further, it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that one cannot believe in a God and also believe in evolution.”
Actually micro-evolution or natural adaptation of species is a fact. So to believe in God and micro-evolution is not a problem, since animals do adapt or die out.
Macro or “Darwinian” evolution, in which one species evolves into another is only a theory. No evidence has been produced. Even as recent as 1995 Neanderthal was discovered to have DNA completely different from homo sapiens. There is also the question of the “soul.” At what point would that have evolved?
David, philosophical materialism (naturalism) can’t examine any question of the soul since, by definition, it does not accept the existence of things non-material. Science, properly understood, would refrain from any statement about the soul because, given the soul’s non-materiality, there are no tools to measure it. Where “science” is invoked to buttress philosophy (as it does in Darwinian or “macro” evolution as you point out above), it ceases to be objective, that is, free of non-empirical, claims.
Your point about micro and macro evolution is important, and one that most armchair Darwinists (including the author of the Reason article) miss. Macro requires a random universe, and randomness, by philosophical necessity, precludes any possibility of a preexisting order, and thus God. Positing that God is the author of chaos is a verbal sleight of hand that reveals Darwin’s notion of a random universe (in reality Darwin’s debt to philosophical materialism) is not properly understood.
Darwin is the last tower in the trinity of philosophical materialists to fall. Marx is gone, Freud is gone. It’s not so much Darwinism’s increasing scientific untenability that is causing the erosion I think, but the sheer hollowness of the materialism on which the entire edifice rests — a cultural shift that allows the sacred canon to be questioned in ways unthinkable half a century ago. We live in interesting, if uncertain, times.
Fr. Hans writes: “It’s not so much Darwinism’s increasing scientific untenability that is causing the erosion I think . . . ”
It seems to be increasingly untenable everywhere except in the scientific community. Working scientists continue to use evolutionary theory in paleontology, genetics, biology, and everywhere else that it’s relevant. They use it to make testable hypotheses. The fact is that intelligent design is simply not useful to working scientists. If it were, they would be using it.
As I’ve mentioned several times, a theory is not some kind of abstract entity. A theory is a tool, and it’s either useful or not. Evolution continues to be useful, and there is no sense in which it is being “replaced” by intelligent design.
Furthermore, the very basic things that intelligent design doesn’t explain are legion. For example
1) why is it that evolution cannot bring about new species? The concept of a “species” is basically a human concept. Organisms are different species if they cannot or do not interbreed. What exactly is the genetic barrier that prevents evolution from giving rise to new species? If you think that it can’t happen, then WHY can’t it happen? What is the biochemical mechanism that prevents that?
2) why does the intelligent designer take billions of years to design species, occasionally wiping most of them out through asteroid strikes or volcanic activity?
3) what is the genetic mechanism by which the designer creates new species? Radiation? Chemical alteration? Random mutation? Alteration of genes in sperm and egg?
4) why does the designer continue to propagate non-functional genes throughout many species — for example the gene that synthesizes vitamin C, that exists in humans and primates, but does not function, leading to scurvy?
To these and a thousand similar questions, intelligent design has no answer.
To the extent that evolution is “untenable,” it is only untenable to those whose worldview requires that the universe work in a different way.
Are you saying that Macro evolution “requires a random universe” but that Micro evolution does not? On what do you base this claim?
My last two posts haven’t shown up yet. Does that mean that they will, with time, or that the moderator didn’t like them?
Phil asks:
On Darwin’s conception of a random universe. Micro-evolution occurs within a materially ordered universe (physical laws, etc.). Macro-evolution, the notion of order emerging from chaos, can’t have any order hovering above the chaos including physical laws, God, universal values, meaning — all the constituents of human experience that we might believe actually “exist.” They only emanate from the matter since only matter has concrete existence.
Further, put “God” above this chaos, and you either demolish naturalism (philosophical materialism), or you redefine God as a monad completely removed from material reality — in actual fact nothing more than a conception. No other possibilities exist apart from a regression into paganism.
Note 16. Yes, Darwinism is a theory in that it functions as an epistemological grid through which data is assembled. The criticism of Berlinsky and others is that the philosophical dependency of Darwinism on materialism actually hinders scientific inquiry — a kind of dogmatic overlay on the scientific method.
Intelligent Design is not a counter theory, as much as a challenge to the materialist assumptions informing Darwinism. In actual fact, science can’t say much about origins because any speculation about origins must, by necessity, be a narrative. There were no eye witnesses to the beginning after all (if indeed there was a beginning — itself an idea that could only have arisen in a Judeo/Christian culture), and Darwin’s theory merely posits one in place of others. That’s why Darwinism is not really science but a creation story, albeit one that is materialist, rather than transcendent, in character.
If Darwin is correct, then Darwinists have nothing to fear. Science itself will reveal that his epistemology is correct. If he is wrong, then as science deepens our understanding of the workings of the material creation, objections will emerge that will either require a fine tuning of the theory, or an abandonment of it altogether. The fact that many credible challenges are arising shows the ship has sprung some leaks. Further, the fact that many of these leaks are plugged not with scientific reasoning but political activism makes me wonder how certain the Darwinist apologetic really is.
If Darwinism falls, and from my vantage point it is inevitable that it will since faith in materialism has all but vanished, it won’t be replaced by “Intelligent Design” in the manner you seem to think it will. “Intelligent Design” does not function as a counter-narrative, it merely challenges the Darwinian dogma that because only matter has reality, any evidence of design is defacto out of bounds.
I could see that being more open to design might reveal connections that a Darwinist simply might not see. I’m not a scientist so this is only speculation on my part. But in drawing cultural parallels, look how the collapse of Freudian thought has opened new areas of psychological inquiry and understanding, or how the collapse of Marxist thought has freed up millions of oppressed people in the world. I don’t see where releasing ourselves from a materialist mythology is a bad thing, even if it wraps itself in science.
Fr. Hans writes: ” . . . look how the collapse of Freudian thought has opened new areas of psychological inquiry and understanding, or how the collapse of Marxist thought has freed up millions of oppressed people in the world.”
Yes. But those weren’t scientific theories. I would call them interpretive frameworks in which certain aspects of human experience could be understood. But not scientific. Much of modern psychiatry is now very “materialistic,” dealing with brain biochemistry, electrical pathways, chemical medication, and so on.
Fr. Hans: “The criticism of Berlinsky and others is that the philosophical dependency of Darwinism on materialism actually hinders scientific inquiry — a kind of dogmatic overlay on the scientific method.”
Question: what science doesn’t depend on materialism? I can’t think of any.
Fr. Hans: “There were no eye witnesses to the beginning after all (if indeed there was a beginning — itself an idea that could only have arisen in a Judeo/Christian culture), and Darwin’s theory merely posits one in place of others.”
Much of science deals with unobservable entities. No one has ever seen an electron, proton, atom, or any of the other subatomic particles. Where I live, 30 million years ago was an ocean. Now it’s a mountain range on dry land, but no one ever saw that transition. There are materialistic theories of how that happened, and no one complains about that.
If you take evolution out of the picture, then much of modern science vanishes, and vast areas of natural phenomena are simply unexplainable. The connections between the fossil record and modern life, the genetic similarities between living creatures, the existence of non-functional genes, and the relationship between geology, paleontology, and biology vanishes. Why were there various versions of fossil horses, and why do we have modern horses? Why did the three-bone mammalian inner ear develop? Why do the same genes exist both in mice and men? These, and a thousand other questions become unanswerable, and science would even be unable to develop testable hypotheses about them. To me that seems like a pretty high price to pay for removing materialism from biological science.
I think the problem with your assertions is clear. There is nothing about the theory of evolution as it is commonly understood or taught that suggests that the universe cannot have physical laws. In fact, the theory of evolution as an explanation of speciation on Earth requires a number of physical laws to exist. Darwin may or may not have “commented on” the laws of physics, but he certainly did not refute them.
That is simply factually incorrect. As you might say, do your homework.
Darwin never saw the implications of the philosophical materialism (naturalism) on which his theory is based. That’s the problem. So yes, in Darwinian thought physical laws preexist the existence of matter. But according to the logic of philosophical materialism, matter is the ground of being thus physical law must emanate from the matter; they cannot preexist matter.
This contradiction becomes apparent only as faith in the philosophy fails, as it has in our century. Darwin (like you Phil) actually thought in terms of Christian teleology, that is time is linear, the world is governed by immutable laws, the universe has meaning, etc. He was very much a man of his time.
Berlinsky and other ID proponents see the contradiction between the philosophical ground of the Darwinian hypothesis and the non-Darwinian assumptions guiding scientific inquiry. Their argument is that Darwinism essentially functions as a dogmatic grid that hinders our knowledge of how the universe actually works.
When I point out that philosophical materialism does not allow the preexistence of physical laws, I am being true to the philosophy. That Darwin did not see this merely points out that he did not really understand the implications of the philosophical outlook he appropriated to posit his new creation narrative. Many people still don’t, even today.
Note 20. Jim asks:
You are confusing two terms: materialism and materiality. “Materialism” (as in philosophical materialism, also called naturalism) is the view that only matter has concrete existence. Materiality deals with empirical reality (the “stuff” science measures).
The critique of philosophical materialism concerns the claim that only matter has concrete existence. Don’t assume that a critique of philosophical materialism means that matter must be denied. Matter is very real.
It seems to me that we now live in an “Einsteinian” as opposed to a “Newtonian” era, where instead of everything must follow a “law”, anything is possible. So IMHO, anyone with any credibility must agree that “anything is possible.” That being said, something really “baffles” me:
Science, as mentioned before, can only observe and “theorize.” Macro-evolution is a theory. The “Big bang” is a theory. Scientist and philosophers, however, want us to believe, without the evidence, that these theories are facts. They are taught as such in our public institutions. And they are done so in an intellectually dishonest way.
Case-in-point: My son is currently taking a philosophy course in a local community college. The professor begins his discussion on the philosophy of religion with the statement, “Evolution is a fact.” Now mind you, he didn’t differentiate between macro and micro he just said, “evolution.” Being products of our fine public education system, these kids just sit and listen, because they figure this guy knows what he’s talking about. So he has already taken control of the argument by setting the parameters.
Next, he poses the question, “Is it rational to believe in God when no evidence exists?” You see for him, and many others who blindly follow Darwinism, with no “evidence”, expect to be given “evidence” of his choosing to prove God’s existence. This professor only challenges these students to think about what he considers irrational beliefs they might have, without questioning anything he might believe. It’s called indoctrination.
If you take evolution out of the picture, then much of modern science vanishes, and vast areas of natural phenomena are simply unexplainable. The connections between the fossil record and modern life, the genetic similarities between living creatures, the existence of non-functional genes, and the relationship between geology, paleontology, and biology vanishes. Why were there various versions of fossil horses, and why do we have modern horses? Why did the three-bone mammalian inner ear develop? Why do the same genes exist both in mice and men? These, and a thousand other questions become unanswerable, and science would even be unable to develop testable hypotheses about them. To me that seems like a pretty high price to pay for removing materialism from biological science.
Why do you stubbornly insist on conflating evolution with Darwinism? Darwinism is one theory of evolution. There are others.
Your argument here is circular. I suggested that the theory of evolution (Darwin the man need not even enter into the discussion) does not rely on philosophical materialism any more than any other scientific theory.
You assert that it does, because it denies the existence of physical laws.
When I say that it certainly does _not_ deny the existence of physical laws, you say that it does, because it is a philosophically materialist theory.
Phil, you need to think more expansively. The discussion can’t be contained within deconstructionist techniques. The ideas have cultural import and ramifications. They are not mere verbal propositions; syllogisms that have no meaning outside of the sentence. (Read more literature. It’s good for the soul.)
Philosophical materialism denies the existence of anything but matter. Physical laws, ideas, beliefs, morality, etc. must emanate from matter. They cannot exist independently. Marx understood this. Darwin never perceived it which shows he still operated within a Christian teleology even though he thought he did not. (Marx did too but on the issue of matter and “idealization” — the term he gave the non-material “emanations” — he was clear).
Think this through. Random chance cannot allow for the possibility of design. Yet to assert that physical laws existed that guided the randomness redefines the term to mean something other than what it really means and cuts the ground out from under the philosophy. Yet, most armchair Darwinists read Darwin through this redefinition. That’s why you want to shove “God” into the highest level of the entire process. It imposes a design where there can be none to try and make sense of this universe that otherwise contains a terrifying silence. (Man cannot live by bread alone but by every… — read the rest here.)
Darwinian evolution is wholly dependent on philosophical materialism regardless of the contradiction in Darwin’s thinking. Put another way, philosophical materialism does not conform to the world as it actually is and neither does Darwinian evolution. That is why it has cracks that are made all the more visible as faith in materialism (Freudianism, Marxism) dries up. (In cultural terms, the faith took a severe blow after WWI, when the myth of progress died on the battlefields of France; a myth rooted in the materialist promise. The final blow occurred when Marxism collapsed, largely through the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and the policies of Ronald Reagan.)
Note 24. DavidS, have you read Paul Johnson’s “Modern Times”? You would really find it interesting, especially given your comment on Einstein (whom Johnson considers the last century’s most influential figure). Another great book is “History of the Idea of Progress” by Robert Nisbet — an oldie but goody!
For the priests:
Please, stop your conversation with the devil, ignore him … Evolution and all the evil it brought about is his work. No God, no judgment, everything is permitted (particularly, permissiveness in sexual matters)
A Sermon on Reading Spiritual Works
by Archbishop Platon of Kostroma
From Orthodox Life, Vol. 34, No. 3 (May-June, 1984), pp. 30-34. Translated by Basil Voytan from A Chrestomathy of Sermons (in Russian), Vol. II, pp. 316-319, Jordanville, 1965.
“This is the commandment given by the holy Apostle [Paul] to his beloved disciple, Bishop Timothy. The reading of holy writings of profit to the soul is one of the main means of succeeding in the spiritual life. Following the Apostle, the Holy Fathers also command us to read continually the holy writings, since this is an important means to spiritual perfection. Such reading is absolutely necessary, especially in the present age, when worldly education and worldly habits threaten to stifle a taste for everything spiritual, and false teachings and ideas are spreading rapidly.
Brethren, without doubt you read many books, but how often do you read books on spiritual matters? Such reading is a respected, beneficial, and gratifying occupation.
First, the reading of spiritual books is honorable. For what reading can compare with it? What is the honor in reading history, the works of philosophy and of famous writers of the pagan past? If true honor and glory consist in feeling oneself near to God and His saints, then it is through spiritual reading that we attain this honor and glory, for through it God speaks with us; through it the great saints converse with us, and through it we enter into communion with the entire Heavenly Kingdom. What an honor to a mortal human being and mere creation! … ” Find the rest of it here:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/onreading.aspx
Tom C writes: “Why do you stubbornly insist on conflating evolution with Darwinism? Darwinism is one theory of evolution.”
When I refer to ‘evolution,’ I mean the idea that evolution between one species and another has occurred, whatever the mechanism.
Fr. Hans: “You are confusing two terms: materialism and materiality. “Materialism” (as in philosophical materialism, also called naturalism) is the view that only matter has concrete existence. Materiality deals with empirical reality (the “stuff” science measures).”
Science has to proceed in a materialistic manner; many call that “methodological naturalism.” Methodological naturalism does not, in my humble opinion, entail philosophical or ontological naturalism — the idea that only naturalistic phenomena exist.
David S writes: “This professor only challenges these students to think about what he considers irrational beliefs they might have, without questioning anything he might believe. It’s called indoctrination.”
There are good professors and bad professors. Some years ago I taught an intro to philosophy course that included a unit on philosophy of religion. My approach was to insist that students rationally argue for positions in the context of the standard arguments for and against the existence of God. This meant that they had to articulate their own positions, as well as anticipating obvious possible objections. I had absolutely no interest in whether they were “right” (on either side of the issues), or whether they agreed with me. My goals was to get them to think in a critical way about the issues, and to understand and articulate traditional arguments for and against the existence of God, at a basic level. I had no interest in creating personal “disciples.”
David S: “Macro-evolution is a theory. The “Big bang” is a theory. Scientists and philosophers, however, want us to believe, without the evidence, that these theories are facts.”
But being a theory is not a trivial thing. Take, for example, the germ theory of disease. This has given rise to a whole class of drugs, antibiotics and antivirals, that have literally saved millions of lives. But it’s “only” a theory. I have a very practical bent. I look at theories not as facts, but as tools. For any particular theory, the question is whether the theory is a good tool — does it provide a basic for productive research, does it enable scientists to develop testable hypotheses. If so, it’s a good theory. Does it mean that it’s “true” — that it explains all possible phenomena both now and in the future? Of course not.
Note 30. Jim writes:
Yes, “methodological naturalism” (nice term) does not entail any acceptance of philosophical materialism.
Actually, Jacobse, I thought your post was the postmodern one. Here you’re suggesting that something like “truth” is less relevant than the cultural ramifications that something leads to. A falsehood which has positive social effects is still a falsehood, in my book. A factual truth which has negative social effects is still a truth.
We could argue about whether one should be promoted and the other suppressed, but don’t fall into the deconstructionist mindset that our opinions actually affect whether something is true or not. I think we both agree that reality is not intersubjectively created.
Here’s the thing: you find the theory of evolution implausible, for various reasons. But rather than saying that it’s bad science, you instead use a rhetorical technique to “reframe” the debate, so that instead of discussing science, we’re discussing “incompatible philosophies.”
If evolution did not occur, then the theory of evolution is factually incorrect. (That sentence is simplistic, of course, because there is so much debate even within the field of evolutionary biology, but you get the idea.)
The only difference between the theory of evolution and every other scientific theory is the length of time over which the process it describes took place. Let’s look at two scientific questions and see if there’s some sort of meaningful difference in their “philosophical naturalism.”
Question 1: The earth is populated by thousands of different species. How did this diversity of life occur?
Question 2: When I drop five Mentos into 2-liter bottle of Diet Coke, a plume of soda shoots up nearly 12 feet in the air.
A scientist will approach both of these questions by examining the evidence and forming an hypothesis. Then she’ll test that hypotheses, most often by experimentation.
If I hypothesize that early life forms passed on random characteristics which showed up in their genetic code, and that over the course of millions of years, this led to thousands of different species, I’m in a bit of a bind as far as experimentation: I can’t simply reproduce the phenomenon I’m describing, because to do so would take millions of years. So I have to look for evidence that supports or refutes this theory.
The existence of transitional forms in the fossil record, the existence of vestigial organs and limbs, and computer models seem to support the theory of evolution.
The lack of transitional forms seems to refute the theory of evolution.
If I hypothesize that gum arabic in Mentos causes soda to shoot out of the bottle, I might try dumping liquid gum arabic into a Coke bottle, only to find that it produces nowhere near the same effect. Then I might hypothesize that it’s the pitted surface of the Mentos, so I create a similar pitted object and find that this has a very similar effect. Etc.
The scientist who concludes that texture is the key to the Diet Coke fountain hasn’t done anything different, philosophically, than the scientist who examines the fossil record to see if evolution was likely to have occurred. One process takes seconds, the other process takes millions of years, but beyond that, their “philosophical grounding” is the same. That doesn’t mean they’re both correct, mind you. But the fact that you find the evidence implausible and the social ramifications unsavory has nothing to do with the philosophy behind the scientists’ thinking.
You might describe human life as a beautiful, wonderful, special, singular, and sacred thing. But that’s not science; that’s poetry. Another person might describe the soda plume in a similar way, and suggest that it’s sheer lunacy to believe that soda fountains just “happen” without divine guidance.
Again, this post isn’t an argument that evolution is true or correct; it’s just an argument that the theory of evolution is not logically inconsistent: there is absolutely no reason to think that the “philosophy behind the theory” posits that there can be no physical laws.
Note 32. Phil writes:
I think Darwinian evolution is bad science, but not being a scientist I can’t defend the assertion with any authority. All I can do is read the arguments of Behe, Berlinsky, and others. I find them convincing, but I am really not in any position to challenge or critique them. That’s why I don’t speak to the science.
But Darwinian evolution is much more than science. It is also, believe it or not, literature in the sense that it functions as a creation narrative. That opens it up to other kinds of analysis as well, including philosophical and historical. That’s the stuff I know something about.
Darwinism will fall when scientists prove its scientific untenability. My point is that the hypothesis will prove to be scientifically untenable because it is first philosophically untenable. My assertion doesn’t say anything about the science of Darwinism, but neither does it accept the counter-assertion that we can’t examine the philosophical dependencies of the theory because science is somehow free of them — a precept of the materialist myth, in my view. Science is never free of philosophical dependencies, a point I’ve been quite clear about such as when I mention dependencies on Judeo/Christian teleology, etc.
Time will tell if I am right of course, but Freud and Marx have fallen and I think Darwin falls next. It’s culturally inevitable, IMO.
You don’t seem to grasp this Phil. If the universe arose by random chance, physical laws must emanate from the matter subjected to that randomness. It can’t be any other way. That you or other armchair Darwinists insist otherwise doesn’t change it. Granted, this inconsistency exists philosophically, but philosophy is all you have in the Darwinian hypothesis because it first functions not as science, but as a creation narrative.
Science, IOW, is driven by materialist philosophy here, and if the philosophy is inconsistent — or to put it bit more clearly: if science can’t square with the philosophy — then either the science or the philosophy is wrong.
I argue the philosophy is wrong. You argue that the philosophy and science are both right. That’s why I argue you don’t really understand the philosophy, and why I don’t accept your attempts to place “God” at the top of the entire process.
Jim Holman,
I appreciate your approach. However, many professors and high school teachers use their position to develop as you say “disciples.” As a high school Social Studies teacher, I always begin the year by telling my students to think for themselves. “Every teacher teaches from his/her own perspective. Do not accept everything a teacher tells you as the absolute truth. Study the facts come to your own conclusions.” Many students tell me that they have teachers that will not let them give their opinions. I tell my students, “Make your argument, but have the facts to back up what you say.”
Regarding theories, you are correct about their value in leading to scientific discoveries. What I object to is although the “Big Bang” and “Macro” or “Darwinian” theories are serious theories, they are not fact. Yet they are treated as such.
It is my humble opinion that scientists, like fundamentalist Christians, fear anything that might prove them wrong or if one of their colleagues changes his/her mind. Case-in-point: If you go to infidels.org, you will see an open letter from a New Zealand university professor to Dr. Anthony Flew, lamenting and hurting that Flew, probably the world’s most famous atheist, now believes in a Supreme Being of some sort. Why is he upset? Does that change anything that this particular professor believes? I repeat: Pity the atheist that wastes his time arguing about something he believes does not exist.
humble me,
We understand your point. St. Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky reminds us in his THE MORAL IDEA OF THE MAIN DOGMAS OF THE FAITH, that evidential apologetics are rarely successful since even many who saw Christ perform the miracles did not believe in Him.
But the Apostle St. Peter also wrote:
“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear..”-1 Peter 3:15
So, we are not to stand as idle fools, but defend why we believe. Yet we know the true way to win souls is to follow that which was said by St. Seraphim Sarovsky:
“Acquire the Holy Spirit, and thousands around you will be saved.”
You keep insisting that the theory of evolution posits that the universe arose by random chance, but the theory doesn’t comment on the origins of the universe. It just suggests that species arose because of random occurrences.
The beautiful structures that form when lighting strikes sand on a beach are the result of random occurrences, yet the electricity which forms them follows strict rules. You have no problem accepting this, I assume–and any theory a scientist forms about how these structures occur would be based on “philosophical naturalism” or materialism, just as much as the theory of evolution. The only difference is that lightning-trees take instants to form and species take millions of years.
Or is there some other aspect of the theory of evolution that you can point to and identify that makes it more naturalist than every other scientific theory? I’ve spelled out pretty clearly that there isn’t, but perhaps you’ve isolated something about the theory itself, not the “mindset that created it,” which supports your claim.
Phil, You keep talking about experimentation. Show us one, just ONE experiment that proves how random actions and chaos cause/give rise to super-structures biological or otherwise. If random actions can do it, it should be as easy as pie to reproduce SCIENTIFICALLY. The Darwinistic claim is that this happened trillions and trillions of times over eons. Yet, in the entire history of science, no scientist anywhere has come up with any experiments that show how this can happen, ever!
All the scientifc evidence and all of biology show us how EXISTING organisms with pre-coded DNA can adjust within a prescribed range and adapt to changing conditions. Scientifically and logicall “Micro-Evolution” (adaptation to environment) does NOT equal “Macro-Evolution” (random actions/chaos creates super-structures and makes one species become a new species by pure chance). This is why Macro-Evolution (Grand Darwinism) is NOT science, is NOT backed by science, and is truly a MYTH.
Banescu, I think you’re mistaking the theory of evolution, which is an explanation of speciation, with “the origin of life.”
You’re saying the difference is one of degree. “Adaptation” is still the result of random environmental factors; it’s not as though organisms choose to change their body structures to be better suited to live in their environment.
As I mentioned, if “macro-evolution” occurred, the process took millions of years. Since no researcher has been able to conduct an experiment that lasted even a fraction of that time, it’s not really surprising that such experimental data doesn’t exist.
But, if you think that the fossil evidence, along with the existing species on the planet, along with data from computer modeling is insufficient evidence, that’s fine. Those are all reasons to question a scientific theory, without resorting to “reframing” the theory as an incompatible philosophy.
DavidS,
You expressed the idea well, better than I can do it.
Even simpler would be like this: the devil is older than anyone of us. He will defeat us no matter how bright we are. We will end up exhausted.
It might not be an easy thing to acquire the Holy Spirit, and save thousands around you . There is still plenty of hope:
God, in His infinite wisdom left us the Holy Fathers’ teachings to guide us. The Holy Spirit talks to us trough them.
We just have to listen. That is why obedience is a great virtue and this is how the Orthodox Church survived trough all the satanic attacks. The last one was the communism. We will see a change in the tactics in the next attacks. Like put a wrap of science on a narrative/theory and many will swallow it.
This is very much a statement in line with deconstruction. You’re treating the theory like a “text,” and suggesting that its meaning–whether intended or not–is determined by its audience.
I agree that science is not free of philosophical assumptions, and in fact, all science is a systematic exploration of the natural world. It assumes that the reality we observe one day will be the same reality tomorrow, and it does not really allow for “the unexplainable,” just the unexplained.
That said, my position is not that evolution is free from philosophical underpinnings. I just maintain that evolution is not philosophically different from any other scientific theory.
You seem to suggest that the thing that makes evolution different is the concept of “order from chaos.” There are several problems with that statement. For example, “order” and “chaos” are not actually a part of the theory; these are subjective terms- matters of opinion.
For example, “chaos” isn’t required. All that is required are random “actions,” for want of a better word. Is evolution the only theory that relies on random occurrences? Certainly not (see the lightning example above, for a simple example.)
“Order,” too, is something that we perceive. And I think the problem is the mindset with which we view the results of evolution. If we think of it as “a process to produce humans and salamanders and cockroaches,” then, wow, it seems pretty unlikely that the result of all that stirring of genetic material and environments led to people and lizards and bugs.
But if we think of it as, “What we see today is the end result, the stuff that’s left over after X, Y, and Z happen,” then it’s not difficult to see that it’s just a scientific theory. If things had happened differently, something else would be left over, instead of us.
Consider, too, that evolution produces quite a bit of “nothing” from order. While many species arose, huge numbers of species have died out. Even organs and biological structures die out and become useless as the organism loses need for them.
So, in summary, while evolution may be bad science, it isn’t philosophically different from other science. If a scientist suggests that, “When these factors are together, the result is different species,” and the “factors” happen to include amino acids, early organisms, and a variety of random events, there’s still nothing “special” that is secretly saying, “…and perfect order can always arise from perfect chaos!”
What’s intriguing about this is that you’re basically arguing that, if the universe arose by random chance, then there must not be a God. It’s an interesting reversal that I’m the one suggesting that, philosophically, there might be a God under any circumstances, and you’re suggesting that there are circumstances under which there could be no God.
I’m going to go back up and quote Michael Bauman:
Aside from the fact that that isn’t really the way the phrase “false dichotomy” is applied, the sentiment here seems to deal with your beliefs about the personality of God. If your personal belief is that “the God I believe in is benevolent, and he would never have created/permitted/employed a system involving random chance to create the creatures he loves,” well, it’s certainly not my place to contradict you. Beliefs about the nature of God are personal, and are essentially irrefutable, since anyone has the capacity to believe anything they choose. (Or, if you prefer, “anything that they are chosen to believe” or “anything that they accept to believe”…I don’t intend my phrasing to be offensive there.)
However, I asserted earlier that it’s not a logical contradiction to believe in a God and also believe in evolution. In fact, it’s not a logical contradiction to believe in a benevolent, omnipotent God and also believe in evolution.
The question, “Why would a benevolent, omnipotent God, who is concerned for his creation, allow species to be created through seemingly random occurrences?” is not different in kind from the question, “Why would a benevolent, omnipotent God, who is concerned for his creation, allow his creatures to experience pain, hurt, evil, and despair?”
All Christian theologians are able to provide plausible, possible answers for the second question. The only way that the first question negates my assertion is if there is no possible explanation for why such a God would do (or allow) that.
So, to support the truth of my assertion, I don’t even have to provide a possible explanation, I just have to make a case that such an explanation is possible. And, given the fact that huge numbers of Christians and people of other faiths do think there’s an explanation, it seems pretty likely that one is possible.
But there’s no need to take my word for it. Plenty of esteemed thinkers find the statement to be true (“It is not a logical contradiction to believe in God and also believe in evolution.”)
Here are a few links, so you can avoid taking my word for it and instead focus on people who have a much deeper understanding of the Christian faith than I:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
(“Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.”)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm
(“The theory of evolution as a philosophical conception considers the entire history of the cosmos as an harmonious development, brought about by natural laws. This conception is in agreement with the Christian view of the universe.”)
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp
(“evolution as science is not a materialistic philosophy; it makes no assertions about any realm of reality outside of nature; it makes no claims for or against the existence of God or the notion that we live in a created universe.”)
http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=72&SID=3
(“Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution — as some people may view it — eliminating the need for God as Creator of All. “)
David S writes: “Regarding theories, you are correct about their value in leading to scientific discoveries. What I object to is although the “Big Bang” and “Macro” or “Darwinian” theories are serious theories, they are not fact. Yet they are treated as such.”
Yes, theories are not facts. I find helpful the following explanation of “theory” from the National Academy of Sciences:
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
In this sense, evolution simply “works.” It explains things that are found in both the plant and animal kingdoms. It ties together various fields of science including paleontology, geology, genetics, biology, biochemistry, and physical anthropology. It enables working scientists to develop testable hypotheses.
Chris B writes: “All the scientifc evidence and all of biology show us how EXISTING organisms with pre-coded DNA can adjust within a prescribed range and adapt to changing conditions.”
Question: might DNA mutations (adjustments, as you call them) and changing conditions give rise to a situation in which over time some organisms would no longer be able to reproduce with other organisms? If not, why not?
I am not sure if my previous posting went trough …
I was saying that DavidS got my idea and expressed it even better than I could do it.
To be even more clear and simpler I would add the following:
the devil is older than anyone of us living our earthy lives and he knows plenty of tricks.
If we rely on our rationing he will defeat us no matter how bright we are. We will end up exhausted.
We might not be able to acquire the Holy Spirit, and save thousands around us, but should definitely aim to that. God, in His infinite wisdom, left us the Holy Fathers and their teachings. We have to follow them. The Holy Spirit talks to us. They acquired the Holy Spirit. Obedience is a great virtue in the Orthodox Church. This is how the Orthodox church survived all the satanic attacks against it (the communism was the latest of them). Other attacks will follow.
The Holy Fathers teach us to ignore the devil (it hurts his pride) and to avoid to engage in debates with him.
I found some interesting quotes on the internet:
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
– Isaac Newton
(“General Scholium,” in Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Isaac Newton. 1687)
“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”
– Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist)
Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry
I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28
“If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.”
– Christian de Duve. “A Guided Tour of the Living Cell” (Nobel laureate and organic chemist
“This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth… [But] for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
– Robert Jastrow
(God and the Astronomers [New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978], 116. Professor Jastrow was the founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute, now director of the Mount Wilson Institute and its observatory.)
“It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.”
“It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”
– Anthony Flew
Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater
humble, you are right, debating with the devil using one’s reason alone is futile at best and quite dangerous in any case. It is why St. Paul warned us against doubtful disbutation. It feeds the pride and the passions. However there is something to be said for stating the truth especially in the face of untruth. IMO Chris should have ended comments on this topic some time ago. Jim, Phil, et.al. know what we have to say, they just don’t care because their faith is in something other than God. They therefore refuse to see the evidence that faith in God reveals.
The homosexual agenda is wrong and damaging because it is in violation of our God given nature and an afront to God’s good will for us. Sin will continue to abound nonetheless. However, those who wish and are willing to do the work to participate in God’s freely given grace can acquire the Holy Spirit at least to some degree.
There is an additional question. To what extent and in what manner should Christians attempt to influence the legal and political social policy? To folks like Phil, any such attempt on our part is “trying to force our faith down their throats”. They refuse to see the obvious corollary that they are, far more successfully at the moment, forcing their faith down our throats.
The secular/materialist vision of man as autonomous without any transcendent being is combined with egalitarianism (a vision that is at the core of evolutionism). A person’s identity becomes synomomous with their desires and passions. Since our desire is our identity, it must be satisfied. It is simply unfair to thwart it or even to say it is bad.
Since, even with the grace of God, it takes real personal effort to engage in the unseen warfare required to participate in the Victory of the Cross, not many of us do it. It’s just too easy to slide into the abyss. Standing up and saying NO! is one way I try to avoid that. Only the Grace of God and the movement of the Holy Spirit will ever lead Phil and Jim into the Truth. I pray for that. In the meantime, I try to craft my words and thoughts for myself. God can give the increase.
Thank you for you sober comments.
Phil #40. Just because you find ‘proof texts’ in statments of some RC and Orthodox hierarchs doesn’t mean they have it right. The mind of the world infects all of us. The academics of this world tend to flock together in mental institutions and end up sharing the same psychosis. They want to re-evaluate the spiritual truth of the nature of man as revealed in the Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers to fit modern scientific thought rather than using the tools God has given us in the Church to critique the modern mind. Since they are doing it backwards, they come out with a backwards understanding.
As ignorant, sinful and unworthy as I am, I say without pause, they’ve got it wrong. The RC statements are a product of their divirgent theology and right now I wouldn’t trust much of anything coming from any OCA hierarch as actually reflective of the teaching of the Church.
This debate deviated from the original topic.
In the Orthodox Church teachings things are clear:
Saint John Chrysostom says that :
It is disagreeable to the demons themselves, whom these […] have chosen as their lords. It is disagreeable to the demons, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. …it is the demon who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demon leaves
Someone who lived practicing the vice of sodomy will suffer more pains in Hell than any one else, because this is the worst sin that there is.
‘For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of’
And you have seen this in the debate on ‘Why we’re losing our right to speak out’.
We are losing our right to speak because those who hate the LIGHT speak louder.
I suspect that not all the homosexual activist are practicing this sin, many of them may not. They choose to serve the forces of darkness and lead others to perdition.
The Church has to speak out the truth and the pure, searching for TRUTH souls, will find the WAY, by God’s mercy, and have LIFE now and forever.
God will reveal Himself to the pure hearts. Read “God’s Revelation to the Human Heart’ by Seraphim Rose
We have to keep the hearts of our children pure and fight for this. A difficult thing to do in our times, but not impossible. So many found the way, even after they have fallen in sin (See “The Life and Works of Fr. Seraphim Rose”, truly spectacular… you will find in this book the answers to many of the issues debated here). These parents are right to be outraged. They will be greatly rewarded for they fight, because this is about saving souls. We have to support them and pray for them.
Michael Bauman,
Did you read the OCA article? One cannot rule out any possibilty about how God created the world. If He guided an evolutionary process would that make Him less God? Fr. Matusiak does not write the article as the definitive Orthodox position on evolution. He even denies “Darwinism” as “the manner” in which evolution, if true, happened. Orthodoxy teaches God is the Creator. As to the details, only He knows.
And your comment regarding “any OCA hierarch” sounds like a blanket condemnation of a group of men that I venture to say you have not met. I personally know a couple of them, and they are very godly men. Even if there are problems, IMHO it is best to keep such comments off this list.
Humble, it’s interesting that you bring up Fr. Rose, given the context of your post. It has been generally acknowledged that Fr. Rose was himself a homosexual, and although many insist on his celibacy after becoming a monk, none that I am aware of insist he became a heterosexual:
In terms of homosexuality being the “worst”, well, I can tell you that you’re not going to be successful in convincing many people that someone like Ellen Degeneres is a graver threat to society than Pol Pot, Papa Doc, Adolf Hitler and Stalin combined.
Your post is, unfortunately, a sad example of why I don’t take religionists very seriously these days. No sense of proportion.
humble, the discussion of evolution is not so far off topic as might be imagined. The doctrine of the Origin of Species from matter alone, perverts the mind with arrogance, dishonors both the body and soul of man, and abandons us to no higher virtue than the will to power, often expressed by unbridaled lust. The perverted anthropology of the evolutionist informs and undergirds the perverted anthropology of the homosexual activist.
St. John’s words fall on modern ears like a hammer since we no longer wish to believe in sin or the demonic. Even we Christians find it easy to excuse sin in the name of compassion. Having been acquainted with a number of homosexuals during the course of my life, I have seen their confusion and their pain often, but most of them do not register in my mind as living demonic lives, but that is perhaps because I fail to appreciate how demonically inspried my own life is. Certainly through repentance and seeking God’s face under the direction of a spiritual father, the homosexual can be restored to grace but forever celebate if the desire itself is not conquered.
Are homosexuals really worse than the abortionist or the pedophile who feeds on the opposite gender raping both body and soul of his/her victims or the incestuous parent? Perhaps not fruitful speculation. It is enough to know that all of these horrbile acts and more are encouraged and even thought virtue by some in today’s world.
Michael Bauman,
We have inherited the Bible which tells us who we are, were we come from, how to live and were we are going. Yet, the humanity is engaged in a mad race to tailor a theory (Big Bang and Evolution combined) which tells us that we come from a point (an extremely dense and hot state) and we are a bundle of desires/lust (which we are greatly encouraged to fulfill ) and then vanish. Because of our pride (we want to call ourself modern man) we fail to see this.
There is nothing wrong with science and there is no contradiction between science (not fake science) and religion. See for example the book : “The Blessed Surgeon The Life Of Saint Luke Archbishop Of Simferopol”. Saint Luke Archbishop was a professor in university and his discoveries in medicine were translated and published in the entire world.
It is indeed pride and arrogance (both sins) which prevent us from seeing the truth. Many of those who see it fear ridicule (again pride) and prefer to keep silence. The martyrs gave up their lifes for the truth. We fear loosing our ‘reputation’ or jobs.
I do not doubt what our Holy Fathers teach us. They acquired the Holy Spirit, remember? You say: “we no longer wish to believe in sin or the demonic.” If this is true, we say we do not wish to believe the Bible and we do not believe in God. We cannot either “believe in matter only”. The people who truly seek the true will figure it out (after they rid themself of arrogance).
“There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity” says St. John, and God abandons those who commit this sin (that is why they are confused and in pain). Many of us were wiling to accept the “genetic disorder” theory, even though they usually do not have children. The truth is that this perversity is spread trough practice and spreads like a disease. Some suggest that this behavior is often link to pedophiles and incest. To teach our children that this is just an other way of life, to tolerate it and worse, to encourage it, is more than wrong is diabolic.
Women make abortion usually because they do not know what they are doing, they are scared or they think that they can’t raise a child, not for pleasure. Is still a mortal sin, sure!. A spiritual father would make a distinction when he gives penance for abortion. Does the woman has other children (then she knew for sure what she was doing)…