Ethics Intelligent Design Mind Religion

When science becomes anti-human life

Spread the love

David Coppedge calls this stuff “anti-Christian.” It is that. But that’s because it’s becoming anti-human. All human traditions must speak against it.

Maybe Christians should go first? Okay… Geronimo!

Two articles highlighted below will be used to justify the headline that science is being used to vilify Christians. That’s an insufficient sample, to be sure, but one support for this view is the absence of debate about it. Usually, when there is controversy about some scientific theory or paper, journals will print alternative views by other scientists. A printed debate is labeled as a “matter arising” about the subject. A critique is printed, and the original author has an opportunity to respond. If serious enough, the journal may print an “editorial expression of concern” about a paper, which might lead to a retraction.

There is no such “matter arising” about these articles. The silence amounts to de facto endorsement by the Big Science consensus. These articles, written by professors at major universities in the name of “science” and reprinted by science news outlets like Phys.org, amount to direct quasi-scientific attacks on what Christians believe. Christians—particularly evangelicals—are portrayed as standing in the way of progress. That is the first step a society can take toward persecuting them.

Pro-Life Views as Anti-Science

In The Conversation, Sahotra Sarkar takes aim at the pro-life movement. Sarkar is Professor of Philosophy and Integrative Biology at the University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts. He launched his pro-abortion attack after the recent Supreme Court decision that did not stop a Texas “heartbeat bill” that bans abortion when a baby’s first heartbeat it is detected. (The bill does not “ban” such abortions; it only permits lawsuits against institutions performing them.)

David F. Coppedge , “Anti-Christian Science Becoming More Blatant” at Creation–Evolution Headlines (September 24, 2021)

Cutting living babies up feet first (in abortions) is a bad idea in principle. What else do we need to say?

But Big Science does not need human beings. It could make do with mostly Big Government and lots of androids.

At that point, it need not even make sense.

Big Science badly needs a sharp whack upside the head. Will it get one?

13 Replies to “When science becomes anti-human life

  1. 1
    Silver Asiatic says:

    This is important. Excellent insights, News – thank you.

    All human traditions must speak against it.

    So true. There are very few movements that could speak across a variety of traditions, cultures and religions to help answer that call. ID is one of them – and perhaps the best.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    So who are these evil overlords who want to exterminate humanity? Shape-shifters? Reptilians? Daleks?

  3. 3
    ET says:

    seversky:

    So who are these evil overlords who want to exterminate humanity?

    Liberals. In the USA they are the losers who voted for Biden for President in 2020.

  4. 4
    Sandy says:

    Seversky
    So who are these evil overlords who want to exterminate humanity? Shape-shifters? Reptilians? Daleks?

    Do you think is something more comical than to believe that some chemicals become a reptile over time?

  5. 5
    Seversky says:

    It makes me laugh.

  6. 6
    ET says:

    And you make us laugh. Thank you.

  7. 7
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    So who are these evil overlords who want to exterminate humanity?

    Take a look at demographics in Western nations – birth rates. That’s just the people who eliminate their own children or abort children of the poor (black communities in America are especially attacked by pro-abortion overlords).
    But you could also consider radical environmentalists (in the spirit of Darwin) who speak of human beings as an evil on this planet that should be eliminated.

    Cutting living babies up feet first (in abortions) is a bad idea in principle.

    It makes me laugh.

    Governor Nordstrom recently explained how children are left to die – after having been born.

    If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    Silver Asiatic/7

    Take a look at demographics in Western nations – birth rates. That’s just the people who eliminate their own children or abort children of the poor (black communities in America are especially attacked by pro-abortion overlords).

    Declining birth rates seem to be associated with being better off financially. People can afford to do other things rather than just churning out babies.

    As for the strong objections from the right to the provision of abortion and contraception services poor communities, it reveals an ugly undercurrent of atavistic misogyny in the abortion movement which largely ignores the rights of the woman.

    But you could also consider radical environmentalists (in the spirit of Darwin) who speak of human beings as an evil on this planet that should be eliminated.

    Human beings have done a great deal of damage to the environment on which we all depend for our existence and are continuing to do so. Private enterprises pillage and pollute the environment in all manner of ways for profit but will do as little as they can get away with to clean up the messes they create, unless compelled to by legislation.

    Governor Nordstrom recently explained how children are left to die – after having been born.

    If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

    Ah, the usual out-of-context quotation.

    Northam’s office said in a statement on Wednesday that his comments were taken out of context and that Republicans “are trying to play politics with women’s health.”

    “No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor’s comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor,” Ofirah Yheskel, Northam’s spokesperson, wrote in the statement.

    “Attempts to extrapolate these comments otherwise is in bad faith and underscores exactly why the governor believes physicians and women, not legislators, should make these difficult and deeply personal medical decisions,” Yheskel said in the statement.

    In a tweet posted later Wednesday, Northam wrote, “I have devoted my life to caring for children and any insinuation otherwise is shameful and disgusting.”

  9. 9
    ET says:

    Science says that life begins at conception. Leave it to the liberals to ignore science when it suits their asinine agenda.

  10. 10
    davidl1 says:

    As for the strong objections from the right to the provision of abortion and contraception services poor communities, it reveals an ugly undercurrent of atavistic misogyny in the abortion movement which largely ignores the rights of the woman.

    Is that implying that if men were the primary caregivers, the “right” would be pro-choice?

    I know it’s just anecdotal, but I’ve never heard anybody say he or she was against abortion because it would benefit women. I’ve heard religious arguments (it’s prohibited by God) and more generic moral arguments (life begins at conception, so it’s killing an innocent human), but I’ve never heard anybody object to abortion on the grounds that it would benefit women.

    I don’t think that it’s reasonable to assume that a pro-life position is a result of misogyny.

  11. 11
    Silver Asiatic says:

    David

    I don’t think that it’s reasonable to assume that a pro-life position is a result of misogyny.

    I didn’t follow that – I think you misstated. I believe you meant “its not unreasonable to think that pro-life is result of misogyny”? Otherwise, yes – it would be unreasonable to think that.

    I know it’s just anecdotal, but I’ve never heard anybody say he or she was against abortion because it would benefit women.

    Aside from the fact that abortion kills baby girls – and therefore to oppose abortion would save the lives of women, there are some women who have survived abortion anyway, in spite of the desire to have them killed:

    https://abortionsurvivors.org/

    Can you imagine surviving and living after your mother and father wanted you dead and attempted to kill you? So certainly, it’s pro-women to oppose abortion for their sake.

    But more significantly, Project Rachel is a significant movement, touching thousands of women who have been abused and harmed by abortion (a movement totally black-listed and ignored by the media so there’s no wonder that you have never heard of them).

    Project Rachel
    https://hopeafterabortion.com/

    Grief, pain, sorrow after having killed one’s own child – that’s a normal reaction. It needs healing and help. Opposition to abortion comes from these very women.
    Very hard to conclude that they’re misogynist. In fact, what does it say about the movement that exists to make it easier to kill children, and then cover up the grisly and tragic aftermath in the lives of thousands of women who suffer the effect (physically, emotionally, mentally)?

  12. 12
    Silver Asiatic says:

    ET

    Science says that life begins at conception.

    Exactly. Even the NY Times couldn’t avoid that fact:

    From Cradle to Grave, Democrats Move to Expand Social Safety Net

    The $3.5 trillion social policy bill that lawmakers begin drafting this week would touch virtually every American, at every point in life, from conception to old age.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/06/us/politics/democrats-biden-social-safety-net.html

    The copy-editor slipped-up here (catch it before it’s taken down) …
    “Every American” will benefit “from conception …”
    They all know this – clearly, they got caught this time. Otherwise, they’re just telling lies about how supposedly nobody knows when life begins.

  13. 13
    davidl1 says:

    Silver Asiatic

    I didn’t follow that – I think you misstated. I believe you meant “its not unreasonable to think that pro-life is result of misogyny”? Otherwise, yes – it would be unreasonable to think that.

    Thanks for the response. I think we have the same position. To clarify, I’m saying that pro-life is not misogynistic.

Leave a Reply