These invidious distinctions matter very much in the medical setting. Being categorized as a non-person is dangerous to life and limb, since most bioethicists assert that only persons are entitled to human rights. In the full expression of personhood theory, non-persons are killable, subject to the harvesting of their body parts, and candidates for non-therapeutic medical experiments.
Indeed but this isn’t much of an observation. Obviously if you are believed to be dead then you’re in a dangerous situation. You can end up buried, have your organs harvested, be part of experiments and so on. You agree with this too! The debate, though, is not whether it is ok to ‘kill’ non-persons but where personhood ends. I gave the hypothetical some time back of a person who is decapitated but their lower body is kept alive by advanced life support. No one disagrees (including you) that while such a body may meet some of the legal requirements for being alive (active heartbeat, metabolic activity etc.) it is not human life. Would disconnecting such machines be murder?
3] In the aftermath of especially WW II, there has been a horrified pulling back from some of those consequences — once we saw the death camps, but the underlying dynamic is still there: once we see ourselves as the accidental products of matter and energy purposelessly interacting across time, an individual has no inherent value that properly merits respect for his or her rights; in particular, the right to life.
Those operating the death camps, though, did not see themselves as accidents. They saw themselves as idealists recreating a mythical utopia that supposedly existed when the Aryan race was pure. It’s intersting that Germany’s main ally, Japan, also had a national myth that lead them to think of themselves not as accidents but as descendents of a Sun god while other humans came from somewhere else. On the flip side there’s a lot to be said for humbling power of the ‘accident’ POV. It can be restated as “there but for the grace of God go I”. The reason you may happen to have power today is because of an accident of matter and energy, not because the universe was made for you to be the one to weild the club over your fellow men.
Let’s look at a slice of the whole: “Once their moral worth has been reduced to that of a cucumber, it becomes easier to justify their killing.” In short, we the rhetoric of dehumanisation being used to create the inference to life unworthy of life, and subject to the despotism and exploitation of the powerful. Notice, too, that we are not just dealing with one case, but many over the years — including cases where quite cognitively functional people were targetted for destruction.
Indeed but if Schiavo was viewed as just a cucumber it becomes that much more difficult to justify even arguing with her parents. Imagine that her parents made a fetish out of a cucumber that Schiavo grew in her garden before collapsing. Imagine they sue her husband demanding custody of the cucumber, demanding it be cared for and preserved, imagine they have available hundreds of thousands of dollars for this purpose. Who would object? Most would view this as a bizaar sort of eccentric behavior but they would think Michael should just give the cucumber to the parents as something to remember their daughter by. While he may have legal ownership of the cucumber legally, most would say denying it to them would be the characteristic of a petty jerk.
The Schiavo case was a perfect test of your ‘cucumber’ theory Gordon. The only money being spent belonged to Terri. There was no base motive for Michael to hang on to ‘the cucumber’. As was pointed out by his critics, he had a girlfriend and children with her so its not like hanging on to Terri was causing him to sacrifice a sex life or children. As was pointed out he was offered millions to walk away, more than what was left of Terri’s settlement (plus her parents offered to let him remain as her sole heir) so there was no financial motive to hang on. At the end supporters of Terri’s parents had to resort to outright slander to explain the motives of those who disagreed (the charge that Terri’s condition was caused by abuse and Michael was trying to kill her to hide the evidence), of which they had not even slim evidence. What the supporters of Terri’s parents would never entertain is that perhaps those that disagreed with them did not think Terri was a cucumber or a ‘life unworthy of life’.
In this fiasco was deeply damaging to the character of botht he pro-life movement and the right wing in general. It was damaging because of the arrogance and disregard for the truth exhibited by their side during the debate. As we can see, Gordon has no problem continuing that pattern here.

All:
Again, let us observe the last cluster of posts above: B makes a resort to unjustified slanders and abuses, as a turnabout distractor, i.e. a red herring.
Sad, but on track record all too predictable.
I will therefore simply make a few notes on points for lurkers — current and future — to note:

1] B’s further remarks on the GR relfect that he is simply not serious about the issue: the GR is a rule that in one form says that love fulfils the law because love does not harm one’s neighbour!
2] Nor, does he properly address and resolve the major blunder concerning animals that allegedly fulfill the GR. Let us again simply point to Joe’s citation of the GR theorem, as already excerpted and easily accessible at the head of this thread.
3] Further to this, the issue with Schaivo etc. is of course the abuse of power to rob people of their rights, in a context where plainly it is our duty to give the benefit of the doubt to life not death.
4] The point of evo mat ethics is that it leads to a relativisation of values, thence a so-called quality of life ethic, with a threshold of life unworthy of being lived. That threshold, historically and currently, is a very slippery thing indeed once it gets in the hands of those whose power interests are served by the deaths of others.

Maybe a further excerpt from the review of Dershowitz’s book cited yesterday will be helpful, as it shows that the failure is across the board once secularist evo mat thinkers have to actually address serious ethics issues:

Professor Dershowitz has taken it, as the thesis threading through this work, that there are in fact no such moral principles that form the ground of our judgments. He claims to find the standards of practical judgment in a mix of considerations he calls “utilitarian,” but he emphatically denies that there are “moral truths” that stand behind these judgments. He professes himself to be “(God forgive me) a moral relativist,” and a “skeptic” in moral matters. A moral skeptic denies that there are knowable truths. The relativist denies those truths from another angle by insisting that there are no objective truths, only standards that are “relative” to persons and places. “Nevertheless,” says Dershowitz, “I believe strongly in the concept of rights.” A concept of “rights”

All:
I see that b now yet again imagines that he can glide over the grave offensive behaviour he has indulged in above and try to engage in a point-by-point interaction.
Sorry, you have now gone repeatedly and insistently beyond the pale of civil discourse. For your own good, you need to come back to civil society before dialogue can be entertained.
I will note that on the claimed “lie” issue, I have pointed out that even for those who ARE reasoning within a quality of life ethic, serious qualms are being had over the lack of testing through standard tests such as MRI and PET scans. From my perspective that simply shows that the border between life and life unworthy of life — and thus consigned to an often cruel death — is a very slippery slope indeed.
Those who wish to see the absurdity B has engeged in on animals that evidently in his opinion are suddenly — he is evidently a reductive materialist on mind — able to know and imagine enough to consciously [there is no other way to apply the GR, as it is an explicit decision rule!] apply the GR, can look above to see who is ducking issues and dodging acknowledging errors.
Similarly, Mr Dershowitz, simply demonstrates just how the currently fashinable materialistic intellectual vision runs into absurdities and leads to exactly the notion of life unworthy of life that I am supposedly injecting into the mindset as a lie. On the contrary, leading popular and serious advocates of that worldview are struggling mightily — and failingly — to address this issue!
Had the Johansen article been consulted, B would also have realised that Mr Schaivo was in fact long since instructed by the people who put in the implants, to remove them circa 1992. (This is a part of the longstanding medical neglect and possibly worse that Terri suffered. Given that her life was on the line, this is not at all an insuperable challenge to modern medical technology.)
But the root issue is as highlighted long since, the shift, through evolutionary materialism, to an absurd thought system that consistently undermines morality and justice. But, injustice has always had its advocates while the issue is current: I here recall the evolutionary advocacy for eugenics, racialism, and the like that seemed ever so plausible to many.
In a few decades, how will the Terri Schaivo case look to reasonably informed people?
Who will be proud to tell his or her grandchildren of their position and reasoning on this issue? [Especially if the grandchildren are asking if Grandpa/ Grandma would want the plug pulled . . .? Or, by then: is it whether to risk their lives by not sending Grandy to the termination-of-useless eaters centre?]
++++++++
It is time to think soberly about where an entire civilisation is headed.
Grace open eyes
Gordon

All:
Evidently, and sadly, the absurdity — not to mention the underlying problem of slanders — continues.
B has specifically and explicitly called nme a liar on a point where I have abundantly and repeatedly showed that in fact I have accurately described the fact, Dershowitz’s logical self-immolation being only one illustrative case in point: evolutionary materialist ethics ends up implying a quality of life ethic that in turn leads to the concept life unworthy of life and subject to termination at the hands of the powerful.
Let us again remind ourselves that Darwin saw this clearly, and wrote – sadly all too presciently relative to C20 history — that:

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. (July 3, 1881). [Letter to Wallace (quoted on p. 343 of Himmelfarb's biography; footnote #9 in Chapter xix, "Darwinism, Politics, and Society.")]

In the world in which I inhabit, it is a gross and unjust abuse to call someone a calculated deceiver without proper basis. Moreover, the pattern of turnabout accusations and slanders, ad hominems and disttractors from amterial points is an amply demonstrated point sustained now across many threads. [I think also that a fair examination of seven months of interaction -- now plainbly at an end unless there is a change for a better approach -- will show that I habve consistently engaged the crucial, material issues, but have not had time to trace down every rabbit trail that functions to fdistract from precisely thoise material issues.]
Now on the GR, the plain fact is that it is a decision rule that depends on ones ability to project scenarios of cause and effect, then to prune the decision tree to eliminate options that do harm, by leaving in those that do to others as one would be done by.
That is, to assert that animals can live by it is to assert that they are capable of functioning by such a conscious framework of thought. but in fact, B’s materialism struggles to get to a funcioning mind that credibly guides US much less animals.
Excerpting a simple presentation on this:

All . . . macro-theories face three major difficulties: explaining the origin of life; explaining the mechanism that allows, say, a fish to evolve into a man in several hundred million years; explaining the all-too-characteristic “sudden appearances and disappearances” of life-forms in the “almost unmanageably rich” fossil record, which is the major evidence.
For, as many competent commentators have repeatedly pointed out,[17] the leap from amino acids formed in spark-in-gas experiments to a complete and functioning life-form is vast. Colour changes in moths are one thing, “amoeba to man” quite another. A fossil record of gaps and postulated but still all-too-missing links is more of an embarrassment than a proof (and has always been so).[18] In short, it is hardly proper to conclude, after more than a century, that macro-evolution is proven fact.
Of course, to many, macro-evolution “must” be true

All:
The conclusive post from B — again insistently using the inappropriate language of “lies” — shows, aptly just where the breakdown has happened.
Let me be plain: the material, GR-linked issue in the Schaivo case was that so long as there is good evidence that we are not dealing with one who is dead, the only defensible moral presumption — on pain of absurdity and worse, far worse — is that life should have the benefit of the doubt.
But, thanks to the impact of the evo mat worldview over the past century and more, there has been a shift to a so-called quality of life ethic, so the resulting concept of life unworthy of life has biased the outcome so that many are blind to the implications of a situation where reasonable tests were not done and the presumption was that death shpould have the benefit of the doubt.
That, given recent history, should give us serious pause.
Unfortunately, this simply does not seem to matter to B. He has then — in the teeth of a significant body of credible evidence as is brought forward above in this thread [and often responded to with ad hominems rather than a reasonable consideration fo the merits and cumulative force] — unfortunately slandered me and others. I have carefully pointed out why the slanderous claims are not well founded, and that they are abusive and should be taken back. This is refused, and the slanders are reiterated.
Certain observations are appropriate:

1] Slander does not become truth by being insistently reiterated.
2] All that the refusal to be accountable over slander shows, is that the party involved has moved far beyond the pale of civil discourse, and has caused a breakdown of responsible dialogue.
3] Moreover, sadly, slanderers are by definition untrustworthy and destructive. [Indeed, in the OT law, such false witnesses were subjected to the penalty they had hoped would befall their victims!]

In self-defense, I must announce a policy: Should I see that this slander or the like is further reiterated, I will highlight the course of this thread, and will document just where the true fault lies: trollish behaviour on the part of B. Given what has already happened with Terence on this matter as he has had to defend himself above in this thread, that is only fair.
Sad that I have to resort to that.
Grace, open eyes.
Gordon

Consider yourself fortunate that someone like Gorden was willing to put up with your ill-founded recriminations for so long and to address your questions. Rather than having “to endure” him, you should thank him. For he is more patient and kind, a better researcher, and much more tenacious than myself. But everyone has limits and you have pushed him to his limts.
Very sad indeed that it ended like this, as I predicted.

1] It will be easily observed that the context of my original remarks was specifically that once evidence exists such that there is reasonable doubt that someone is dead, then under GR ethics, the benefit of the doubt must go to life, not to putting to death.
No one was put to death in this case. That’s an issue I’ve covered numerous times yet the point is ignored. Instead we are invited off on yet another tangent regarding Bill Bennett.
Nor is substantiating evidence to be dismissed with a wave of the hand as for instance has happened with my citing the exasmple of Deshowitz….
I’m the one who cited video evidence, the testimony of doctors who actually examined her, the conduct of her parents’ supporters etc. You want to go off on yet another tangent regarding a over exposed TV pundit who wasn’t even part of the case.
2] I further pointed out that, ever since Darwin and co, the evolutionary materialist worldview’s account of the origin and development of life has consistently led to an ethics of survival of the fittest, thence “quality of life” thence the concept, life unworthy of life, and the despotism of the powerful over the vulnerable. Perhaps a second quote from Darwin’s 1871 book, The Descent of Man, ch 6, will help reinforce our understanding:
all of which I addressed several times. You don’t like my answers, fine. You seem obsessed and perplexed that rational people do not read Darwin like scripture, believing him to have been infallible on any and all issues.
Thus, we plainly do not see a pattern of calculated deception on the part of the pro-life protests as I have cited above in the thread. [It will be noted by informed observers that I have specifically refrained from citing the claims that have been made in some quarters that point accusing fingers at Mr Schaivo on claims of wife abuse and attempted murder triggering the disease process. Such a charge shifts the burden of proof and I am not satisfied that it has been met.]
Nice to see Gordon can be on the side of truth at least sometimes. Too bad Terry fell for the easy bait of bearing false witness. Let us repeat Terry falsely asserted Micheal wanted her dead for financial gain, then when confronted with the fact that he had much more to gain financially by letting her parents have their way he backtracked and made unsubstantiated accusations of supposeded ‘book and movie deals’ that depended on her dying and he also asserted his specific charges of financial gain were irrelevant. These lies sit like the tip of an iceberg of lies on the Schiavo case. You touch upon them finally. The assorted accusations of attemted murder and spousal abuse all discovered after the fact….notice how no one ever said Terry was abused by her husband and he might have caused her brain damage when they were suing her doctors for malpractice! The deceptive editing of the ‘balloon footage’ as I noted was confronted by those who actually watched the full tapes… even here the ‘life unworthy of life’ accusations rather than listening to the arguments of those who disagree speak of an amazing degree of arrogance and quite frankly childishness. Indeed it is sad but hopefully some good will come from my efforts to confront you’re arguments with facts.

Remember, this is a human being where there is reason to see that she was not dead but had organs being kept going by artificial ventilation etc,
As has been noted before, refusing artificial life support is not the same as being put to death. There’s a huge span of difference between refusing life support or refusing experimental treatments or even refusing standard treatments and being put to death which is what euthansia is. An important discussion item raised hundreds of posts ago and ignored.
e.g. the key point B overlooks in the video clip he commented on was that she was responsive to other people and TRACKED a floating balloon, even arching her eyebrows to do so; i.e was showing conscious activity as is repeatedly described in reports from family and affidavits from neurologists and nurses
Wow, Gordon you must think I’m really stupid your must be really bold to try to pull off this incredible lie. I hardly overlooked the video clip, in fact I commented upon it in depth. I demand at once that you retract this slander and issue an apology to me and the readers of this thread (if there are any left). I regret that he has allowed himself to fall into such deep uncivility.

All:
I think the further botched attempt at a turnabout accusation in the last post by B is illustrative of the problem, and is worth a note. This is not to engage in a back-forth but to help B see what has gone ever so sadly wrong:
Kindly, first read the note, and compare my remark that the point overlooked — i.e. not appropriately recognised, and by charitable assumption inadvertently so [worldviews and passions associated therewith do influence what we see/ don't see, even in the literal sense, i.e. paradigms blind us to some things just as much as they enable us to see other things] — was the implications of tracking behaviour, as was for instance noted in:

Portions of a four-hour videotaped examination of Terri by Hammesfahr were shown to the court during the evidentiary hearing. In the video, Terri appears to interact with her mother with a reaction of happiness, follow commands to open and shut her eyes and lift limbs, and tracks a Mickey Mouse balloon across the room with her eyes . . . . Anderson later described her behavior in a statement to an appellate court.
“Terri smiles appropriately, she laughs appropriately, she tracks a balloon with her eyes, she tracks a set of flashing lights with her eyes, she opens her eyes wide on command, she squeezes her eyes shut on command, she turns her head and looks in the direction of the speaker, she follows Dr. Hammesfahr’s movements around the room with her eyes, and, perhaps most poignantly, Terri tries as hard as she can to do that which is asked of her,” Anderson said. [Remember, these are in statements to a court, with videotape backup]
Schiavo’s experts chalked Terri’s responses to commands up to “involuntary reflexes.” Cranford called the videotape a “cheap trick.”
Asked to describe his reaction to the video, Michael Schiavo told WND: “I see a shell of somebody I used to know. Somebody I loved and adored very much. And now she’s a shell. … She’s existing. That’s not life.”
“The overwhelming majority of people would agree that there are fates worse than death,” Felos summed up in his closing arguments at the evidentiary hearing. “Can you imagine the agony and torture … if Terri Schiavo had cognition of her condition? Thank God she doesn’t,” he said.
[ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463
]

Compare also the remarks of a blogger who closely watched teh same videotape, on the significance of tracking and eyebrow arching:

When I watched the video, I made an interesting observation. As Terri

All:
The false accusations continue; e.g. I in fact specifically discussed the issue of Terri’s tracking by eye, as taped by video; and the associated affidavits by neurologists. Excerpts, links and discussions on points can be traced above.
Further to this, I showed that the issue is that once REASONABLE DOUBT exists, the moral duty to an intelligent agent kicks in and gives the benefit of the doubt to life, not to death.
THAT is the issue that is beig evaded by all of this insistent resort to slanders and the like.
That is shameful, and B should cease and desist from such uncivil conduct.
Indeed, he is showing the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of his position by the sort of resort that we continue to see.
Grace open eyes
Gordon

All:
Given the many affidavits and video evidence already in th epublic domain, I hardly need to attempt to further show the extent of the factual, logical and moral meltdown evident in the last post just above.
Furthermore, it is now evident that there is no intent to apologise for or pull back from a path of utterly despicable uncivility of tone. In effect, having plainly lost on merits relavant to facts, logic and moral duty, B has resorted to closed minded insistence on claims that are highly dubious, backed up by abuse of those who dare to differ. Sad.
And of course, this rhetorical stratagem makes a mockery of his original statement that he adheres to the Golden Rule. Which, I initially welcomed, as a point of agreement!
To address the actual balance of the case, to remind lurkers present and future, I will simply go back to David Limbaugh’s trenchant March 25th remarks on the matter:

Terri Schiavo’s medical condition is in dispute, she left no living will, we don’t know her present wishes, and yet the courts are ordering that her husband has the right to kill her? This outrage simply couldn’t happen in a culture that considered human life sacred.
“Objection,” you say. “The courts are exhibiting their ultimate respect for life by carrying out the wishes of a person to terminate her own life and die with dignity.”
Even the “pull the tube” advocates, then, are agreeing that we can’t remove the feeding tube unless the patient has previously indicated her intent, either in writing or verbally, that that be done.
But what other conditions must be necessary for the doctors to remove nourishment to a physically healthy patient? Well, presumably, the patient must be in a persistent vegetative state, or PVS.
The courts have apparently determined that both conditions have been satisfied: Terri is in a PVS, and she expressed her intention not to be kept alive artificially if she ever arrived in that condition.
But based on informed opinions we’ve learned about in the last few days alone, isn’t it obvious that there is significant doubt as to both conditions?
Nurses who personally treated Terri are coming out of the woodwork to state that Terri was responsive, communicative, capable of swallowing and far from a PVS. Distinguished physicians are opining that Terri is not only not in a PVS, but could likely be rehabilitated. Her parents, who surely would not do anything intentionally to cause or perpetuate Terri’s suffering, believe she has been responsive and wants to continue living. Is this not enough to raise extraordinary doubts as to Terri’s alleged PVS?
What about Terri’s alleged expression of intent that she not be artificially sustained? Shouldn’t it deeply disturb us that the courts are relying primarily on the testimony of an estranged, discredited husband riddled with personal conflicts of interest to divine Terri’s intent, especially when Michael reportedly didn’t share that communication for some seven years after Terri’s “incident”?
Shouldn’t it haunt us that a number of Terri’s nurses have stated that Michael forbad rehabilitative and other treatment to Terri at a time when she seemed susceptible to improvement and that he made shocking statements about Terri? What possible motive, other than masochism, would they have to lie?

Plainly, the duty of care to respect life has been further undermined in the United Staytes and the wider western culture. Unless thayt trend to ruin is addressed and turned back, the consequences are predictable, and horrible.
Equally plaily, B has been blind to what is obvious, and deaf to what is reasonable. He has compunded it with abusive conduct when he has been called on it.
Sad.
I now announce a policy for this thread: unless there is a post that becomes so outrageous and/or raises materially new points requires me to respond, I will simply hold this thread up to the sunlight as a capital example of intellectual and moral bankruptcy leasding to uncivil conduct, i.e. trollish behaviour.
Sad, ever so sad.
I ask those visitors present and future who believe in prayer to pray for this sad case of logical and moral meltdown. I, too join you in asking God to grant a gracious opening of eyes and heart, followed by repentance from folly:
Grace, open eyes.
Gordon

All:
It is further plain that I am dealing with trollish, condescending, closed-minded behaviour.
Lurkers can read the thread above for themselves to see B’s unfortunate persistent slanders and misrepresentations, and why they are properly to be deemed such.
The root of the problem is of course the underlying intellectual and moral bankruptcy of evolutionary materialism — as shown above and in many other places, and its devastating impact on the principle that one should respect the right to life, the first of all rights and the condition of all other rights.
Let us heed the warning given to those with eyes to see and ears to hear posed by the Terri Schindler Schaivo case.
Grace, open eyes
Gordon

All:
I find the last note by B saddening. It is the mark of a closed, sadly, childishly triumphalistic mind, given the range of material evidence available and the fraction cited or linked above.
Since open minded critically aware people can easily enough follow up the thread above and further materials, which will show that the actual burden of proof and duty assumed by those who put Terri to death was not met; I need not detain myself further with puerile shouts by one who has now proved himself, sadly, a closed minded, childish slanderer.
I can only pray that he will wake up before it is too late. i simply point out that the only coherent basic principle on matters like this is that the benefit of the doubt goes to life, not death.
B has elected to attempt to justify the indefensible, and so has had to resort to slander and distraction in the teeth ofg the evidence. Further to that, his underlying rhetorical strategy was to distract from another point amply established by the thread: that the Golden rule is key to our long term survival, but is neither well-grounded nor preserved by evolutionary materialist approaches to ethics.
Let Darwin’s predictions and the history that followed and is as yet unfinished serve as a sufficient warning to those who would be tempted to hold to the worldview that has had such a track record, and leads to the sort of warped rhetorical stratagems we see ever so painfully on display above.
Grace, open eyes
Gordon

“evolutionary materialist approaches to ethics”
A nonsense phrase used only by those who are criticizing evolution. It is as absurd to talk about “A Newtonian dynamics approach to ethics” or a “Brownwinian partical model approach to ethics”.
If evolution has anything to tell us about ethics in a serious sense (and that stuff is bad) then how come it is the critics of evolution like Gordon on this list that have been caught in lie after lie? Those who self proclaim themsleves to hold the high ground here are among the least ethical of all.
Since Gordon would require scientists to bind themselves to idle speculations made by Darwin over 100 years ago regarding ethics and policies, is it not fair to bind the critics of evolution with the ethical actions of their modern day advocates?
For example, this is how the Christian Board of Ed members in Dover, PA behaved:

The campaign was hard fought and at times nasty. Board members sent out a mass mailing accusing the Dover Cares slate of allying with the American Civil Liberties Union, a group, it said in the mailing, that had also defended terrorists and the North American Man/Boy Love Association. The A.C.L.U. is representing the plaintiffs against the board

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/10/national/10dover.html
Certainly one would imagine the Christian prohibition against bearing false witness against one’s neighbor would prohibit such slimy charges against their own neighbors! Yet these Christians don’t take the high road, they don’t let the truth stand on its own, they feel the need to malign and slander their own neighbors trying to associate them with terrorists and child molestors!
Or how about Pat Robertson who has basically tried to depict God as a Terrorist in his latest statements:

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God — you just rejected Him from your city,” …”And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there,”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/10/AR2005111001983.html?nav=rss_nation
The only ‘crime’ the town committed is to vote out members on its school board. What debased type of ethics can ID advocates have to be associated with this sort of scummy behavior? These aren’t the ramblings from 150 years ago, these are things being done today by people supposedly shaped by Gordon’s superior ethics of the ID movement! Lies about ones’ neighbors, threats of diasters for failing to vote the way a person wanted!
Considering the intellectual company Gordon keeps I wouldn’t be so eager to start arguing ethical or moral deficiencies if I were him.

1. I do not control Mr Robertson et al, but know enough to know that their ethical readings on the situation and activities are not reasonably to be taken as a representative cross section of Christian thought
Irrelevant, do you have the slightest bit of evidence to show that Darwin’s 100 year old thoughts on Europe’s victory over Turkey represents a cross section of thought of biologists? YOu’ve asserted that ID provides for a more ethical ‘worldview’, it is only fitting that we examine the ethical behavior of ID supporters today to see if they show better moral behavior. If you had claimed that supporting ID decreased the incidence of cancer it would be perfectly fair to see if IDers get cancer less often than those who support science.
2. As to the voting patterns of the Dover community, given the sort of propagandistic power games that have been going on [which this thread amply illustrates, as do others on the topic of darwinism], that is no surprise.
Build off the cancer analogy, if the argument was that an evolutionary worldview causes cancer but an ID one prevents it one would be surprised to see the 8 members all get cancer at once. Here you have supporters of science and ID clashing, if your hypothesis is true one should not be surprised to see immoral tactics used by the ‘worldview corrupted’ evolutionists but very surprised to see it by the school board members. Yet the members behaved even more unethically than their opponants.
Where Mr Robertson does have a point is that any nation that deliberately turns its back on God has set out on a path of self-destruction and judgement from God.
Again the ‘God as Terrorist’ meme gets sympathy from the ID crowd here. More evidence that an ID based worldview generates, if anything, a debased form of religion and a corrupted type of ethics.
3. But, we do not have to go to Roberston for that, Rom 1 [already cited] and Eph 4 – 5 are quite enough on why we see that men have no excuse for rejecting God, and how this rejection makes them spin out of control into intellectual and moral bankruptcy – itelf the first wave of Divine Judgement.
Another sin of ‘bearing false witness’. Do the residents of Dover not have a right to elect who they please to THEIR school board? Since when did the 8 clowns become God’s living representatives on Earth and voting them out become rejecting God?
Don’t get mad at me for taking so-called Christians on this list seriously Gordon. I call their bluffs and take them at their word. So far you’ve just dug yourself deeper and deeper into shame.

PS The accusation of beatrin gfalse witness — i.e. a turnabout accusation by a nor insistent slanderer — is so blatantly inexcusible that I will excerpt the relevant part of Rom 1, which speaks more directly and forcefully to the issue than I can:

RO 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse . . . .
RO 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32. . . they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

All I need to add, is the observation that an election is a means by which voters cxhoose their leaders by a process fo formally registering approval or disaproval. next time one goes out to vote, then, consider soberly the implications of the character, agendas, teachings and behaviour of those one votes for.
For, we are under God’s moral government, and will therefore account for our behaviour, thoughts and words — including what and who we approve. The proof ogf this is that the One who embodies the standard of that judgement, was raised from the dead, with 500 + witnesses and a movement that for all its sins and sttruggles, has for 2,000 years shown the power of that resurrection.
Grace, open eyes
Gordon

2] God as judge means as Terrorist? I observe a confused reference to Dover and to the notion that describing God as judge of the earth — appealed o in the US DOI 1776 — equates to that of dismissing him as a terrorist.
Basically Robertson is calling for people in Dover to suffer a diaster because they voted the wrong way. If Robertson had said someone should, say, plant a bomb in Dover or destroy their water system he would be undeniably advocating terrorism just as any Al Qaeda web site. Robertson’s debased view of God, though, is as a universal terrorist who brings natural diasters on those who don’t vote the way Robertson wants them to vote. This is horrendous arrogance and note that Gordon basically excuses it after first making a few noises to sound politically correct saying Robertson isn’t a cross-section for all Christians.
As to the notion that Darwin’s cool preedictions in both a personal letter and in his 1871 book…
Note that Gordon continues to tie biologists in 2004 to century plus old speculations by Darwin yet when I call him out on his own ethical lapses and those of ID advocates he cries slander!!
So, now, the folly of equating being under moral government and subject to God’s judgement as a consequence with “terrorism” should be evident to any who is willing to think.
Interesting voting for people who blatently violate the Ten Commandments in persuit of their political power (thou shall not bear false witness against they neighbor) is now considered ‘moral government’ by Gordon. This is the superior morality of those whose worldview is influenced by ID!
PS The accusation of beatrin gfalse witness — i.e. a turnabout accusation by a nor insistent slanderer — is so blatantly inexcusible that I will excerpt the relevant part of Rom 1, which speaks more directly and forcefully to the issue than I can:
That’s interesting, nothing in the passage you cited supported the accusation that those neighbors of the Dover school board who ran against them supported terrorists or child molestors.
The proof ogf this is that the One who embodies the standard of that judgement, was raised from the dead, with 500 + witnesses and a movement that for all its sins and sttruggles, has for 2,000 years shown the power of that resurrection.
That guy, if I recall, did not have to resort to slander and lies to make his arguments. He did, however, have quite a few stern words to say for those outwardly reiligious looking people who did, though. Be careful who you judge Gordon.

For those observing it might be useful to end this thread with observations of Gordon’s style. Note the arguments he ignores repeatedly:
1. The problem with taking subjective observations at face value.
2. The impeachment of witness credibility (for example, “We saw Terri follow the balloon” when we now know she was actually blind).
3. The double standard, anyone who supports science must be tied to Darwin’s outdated century old speculations but anyone who believes ID can distance themselves instantly from their fellow nut cases by crying ‘doesn’t represent a cross-section of Christians’.
4. First denying kinship with Pat Robertson but then (‘balanced’ he calls it) basically embracing his position.
5. Ignoring the serious distinction between ‘natural life’ and ‘artificial life’ created by advancements in medical technology.
More to the point Gordon’s problem is an inability to conduct himself in a decent dialog. He has repeated the same points a thousand times over and attempted to bury and response underneat layers of spam that are essentially nothing more than repeating the same argument. Sadly engaging him has long since gone beyond the point of diminishing returns.

All:
I note that I inadvetrtently mangled the first paragraph just now. The post should read:
+++++++++++++
I observe that B again, sadly but predictably, resorts to misrepresentations and insistent repetiton of exposed slanders.
Kindly look at the thread above to see what the balance of facts and reasoining is, then follow up the links to the affidavits and summaries of the record, think hard about the duty to protect life, and consider the implications of Darwinist thought for values such as that — in light of what Darwin himself explicitly said and predicted in his 1871 Descent of Man:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world…. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Further to that, since voting is a process of approval or disapproval of persons, behaviour and ideas, we are accountable before God for our voting. If Mr Robertson is teaching these points, he is being faithful to the judaeoChristian position at those points. I have not endorsed the idea that God would punish the people of Dover with natural disasters as a specific judgement for their voites in the recent School Board election: such a judgeent buy disasters if possible,but would come after a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing the utter rejection of not only God but good sense
Again scientists today must be bound by non-scientific speculations that are over 100 years old by Darwin yet modern day ID advocates are not responsible for the moral behavior of their own?
As to the notion that one can brush aside hours of video evidence and sworn testimony of neurologists who saw her professionally with “we know she was blind” — that simply illustrates a very different kind of blindness. (
Actually what you left out is “we know she was blind from the results of the autopsy”. Again we see when it plays to his advantage Gordon is happy to use the argument from authority. When Mr. Degreed Professional says something Gordon likes we must respect it because it is sworn testimony of neurologists, or nurses, or eyewitnesses etc. Yet respect for authority only extends as far as Gordon’s ideology. The only thing brushed aside here was the reports summarizing all the hours of video evidence. That is dismissed in favor of only the few edited minutes claimed to make Gordon’s arguments.

All:
I see I mangled: throwing pears to pigs, not pearls. Oh, well.
But more importantly, my daily online read has thrown out an article that shows just how fast the threshold of life unworthy of life is slipping, post Terri: http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001681.html#more
In this case, explicit oral responses repudiating a living will were evidently ignored when a ventilator tube pulled [which would evidently have triggered alarms; leading to the death of a very conscious patient who had in front of witnesses expressed his will to live even on a ventilator in terms like:

Viola Chambers asserted her husband of 58 years, who signed a living will in Iowa in 1990, did not want to be kept alive by artificial means. But 10 other family members

I see in my break that Gordon has returned to the argument from authority fallacy. If these are the terms he wishes to adopt it’s an easy win for me.

As with most people who use the argument by authority fallacy, Gordon only likes to have it work in one direction. He would ignore any and all experts who reach a conclusion he doesn’t like and engage in ‘expert shopping’ till he find one that agrees with him. He then has the nerve to assert that people like me cannot evaluate his expert’s opinion because…well we aren’t doctors after all!
To criticize him or his cronies, to expose his statements of dubious truth value is ‘slander’ yet he is free to toss around nazi comparisions at the drop of a hat. If you can’t take it Gordon don’t put shovel it!

Actually argument from authority is a fallacy but its an acceptable one in some cases such as where it is simply not feasible to learn everything necessary about a subject. In such cases you can use expert witnesses but the standards are objective. If you’re rule is “if the guy has an MD then he knows what he’s talking about” then you have to apply that to both sides when they deploy MD’s. Gordon would have his cake and eat it too by pretending the experts on the other side simply didn’t exist.
Second the fact that an expert may have a differing position does not make a case in itself. One psychologist testifying that the defendant was insane does not mean the jury of laypeople must aquit him on the grounds of insanity. Even the testimony of experts should be evaluated.

To the contary, you have not been slandered! I have not dismissed ‘contrary sworn testimony’ but simply demonstrated why we should not give it the weight you would have us give it. Your position leads to the absurd conclusion that ‘reasonable doubt’ is generated every time a single expert is recruited to speak.