• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

A Revolution in Biology, A Distortion in Theology...

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
183,112
66,465
Woods
✟5,962,433.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In his recent essay “A Revolution in Understanding the Embryo,” Dr. John Wallingford, the Regents Chair in Molecular Biology at UT Austin and a past president of the Society for Developmental Biology points to an amazing fact:

Fifty-four years ago, I did something extraordinary. I built myself. I was a single, round cell with not the slightest hint of my final form. Yet the shape of my body now—the same body—is dazzlingly complex. I am composed of trillions of cells. And hundreds of different kinds of cells; I have brain cells, muscle cells, kidney cells. I have hair follicles, though tragically few still decorate my head. But there was a time when I was just one cell. And so were you.
Wallingford continues, “All organisms, including humans, build themselves. Our construction proceeds with no architects, no contractors, no builders; it is our own cells that build our bodies. Watching an embryo, then, is rather like watching a pile of bricks somehow make themselves into a house, to paraphrase the biologist Jamie Davies in Life Unfolding (2014).” The human embryo is actively self-developing his or her body toward becoming a newborn, a toddler, and eventually an adult.

Unfortunately, Wallingford does not stay in his lane of his biological expertise:

In the modern debate over abortion, the doctrine that ‘life begins at conception’ is now so constantly repeated that it’s often assumed to have an ancient, perhaps even scriptural origin. It does not. In fact, in Catholic canon law, the doctrine dates precisely to 12 October 1869, when Pope Pius IX declared excommunication as the penalty for anyone involved in obtaining any abortion. For the nearly 2,000 years that had gone before, however, many Christian thinkers held the embryo to acquire its humanity only gradually. This concept, linked to the ‘animation’ or ‘ensoulment’ of the embryo, arose in laws first set down more than 3,000 years ago that imposed increasingly harsher penalties for causing the loss of a pregnancy as it progressed.
Wallingford’s claims are misleading. The Catholic Church has always condemned abortion, not starting in 1869, but from the first century in the Didache, the Letter of Barnabas, and the Apology of Tertullian. Medieval authors like Thomas Aquinas and contemporaries like Pope Francis echo this unchanging teaching.

Continued below.
 

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,277
7,365
70
Midwest
✟374,670.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Didache 2:2
notyou will murderchildindestruction,neither[newly-] begottenyou will kill
oufoneuseivteknonenfqoraoudegennhqenapokteneiv
οὐ φονεύσεις τ́κνον ἐν φθορᾷ, οὐδὲ γεννηθὲν ἀποκτενεῖς,

Kind of weird way to say abortion (Child in destruction) but it is paired with a child begotten so one must interpret as in the womb.

I liked the way the author identifies with the single cell.

Aristotle talked about entelechy - that which realizes or makes actual what is otherwise merely potential.
So even that single cell has the entelechy of a fully mature human person.
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,897
6,577
64
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟358,309.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wallingford is just like every other "scientist": he cherry-picks whatever data fits his pet theories, and blithely ignores (or actively condemns) whatever doesn't.

The definition of "science", these days, can best be described not as a large bowl filled with our accumulated knowledge, but rather a large colander with huge masses of anomalies draining through and discarded.
 
Upvote 0