A friend of mine once told me "Science isn't perfect, but when it comes understanding this existence its the only game in town that is based on logic and reproducible evidence."
Christianity and the moral stance that "Life" should be held precious and sacred is based in ideology diametrically opposed to the actions of most Christians and well humanity for that matter. We as a human race need to take into consideration our history as individuals and as a species and decide if we truly value "Life". As a species we have the ability to create and destroy, our history has shown we have excelled in both arenas. Christianity has had approximately 2000 years of existance and in that time has done very little to advance man's understanding of the universe (it can be argued that this was a means of politically controlling and thereby increasing the wealth of those in power but that is another topic). Bottom line for me is that basing ones belief structure on the thoughts, ideas, and hopeful wishes of under-educated nomadic sheep herders or subjugated peoples of the Roman Empire may have been applicable to its time, but individuals who chose to do so now are clinging to ignorance.
Opposing the cloning of human embyonic cells for purpose of researching cures for diseases is ridiculous. The issue would be moot if these were plant embryonic cells or shark embryonic cells, because humans in general are anthropocentric, with Christianity being extremely so, we have the pleasure of listening to the ignorant masses clamour against something that could benefit even loudest objector.
True science should speak nothing of nor adhere to the prevailing morality of any age, especially one based on the convictions of a cult no matter its size, its sole purpose is to experiment, catalogue, and attempt to understand. Historically if this was done, Da Vinci would never have disected cadavers (morally and spirtually taboo in his day). We would still think bacterial and viral infections were demons possessing the bodies of the afflicted and call priests for help. Information is not bad. Words are not bad. How people make use of information or words is where the debates on morality should start. So please before you discount someone's research or declare a topic of research morally reprehensible and start protesting Harvard science labs, think about all the things Science and innovation has done for you. Electricity, fresh water to your homes, waste removal, immunization, refridgeration, and the list goes on. I tend to like these things and appreciate the fact that there are humans out there trying to further improve our understanding of the universe and help me live longer to enjoy it.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence." -RAWilson
Slashdot Mirror
A friend of mine once told me "Science isn't perfect, but when it comes understanding this existence its the only game in town that is based on logic and reproducible evidence." Christianity and the moral stance that "Life" should be held precious and sacred is based in ideology diametrically opposed to the actions of most Christians and well humanity for that matter. We as a human race need to take into consideration our history as individuals and as a species and decide if we truly value "Life". As a species we have the ability to create and destroy, our history has shown we have excelled in both arenas. Christianity has had approximately 2000 years of existance and in that time has done very little to advance man's understanding of the universe (it can be argued that this was a means of politically controlling and thereby increasing the wealth of those in power but that is another topic). Bottom line for me is that basing ones belief structure on the thoughts, ideas, and hopeful wishes of under-educated nomadic sheep herders or subjugated peoples of the Roman Empire may have been applicable to its time, but individuals who chose to do so now are clinging to ignorance. Opposing the cloning of human embyonic cells for purpose of researching cures for diseases is ridiculous. The issue would be moot if these were plant embryonic cells or shark embryonic cells, because humans in general are anthropocentric, with Christianity being extremely so, we have the pleasure of listening to the ignorant masses clamour against something that could benefit even loudest objector. True science should speak nothing of nor adhere to the prevailing morality of any age, especially one based on the convictions of a cult no matter its size, its sole purpose is to experiment, catalogue, and attempt to understand. Historically if this was done, Da Vinci would never have disected cadavers (morally and spirtually taboo in his day). We would still think bacterial and viral infections were demons possessing the bodies of the afflicted and call priests for help. Information is not bad. Words are not bad. How people make use of information or words is where the debates on morality should start. So please before you discount someone's research or declare a topic of research morally reprehensible and start protesting Harvard science labs, think about all the things Science and innovation has done for you. Electricity, fresh water to your homes, waste removal, immunization, refridgeration, and the list goes on. I tend to like these things and appreciate the fact that there are humans out there trying to further improve our understanding of the universe and help me live longer to enjoy it. "Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence." -RAWilson