Is Christianity standing in the way of progress?

Sander

This ghoul has seen it all
Staff member
Admin
Orderite
Well, is it? I'm not sure, it could be, but it may not. What I do know is that mr. Bush is now standing in the way of progress, the medical progress. With several quick google searches, I could not find any good info, but scientists have recently cloned stem cells, and they hope to cure diseases with it. This should be published in "Science" next month. Bush, however, wants to ban this worldwide. So he would allow people who suffer from incurable diseases, to keep on suffering, denying them a possible cure.

But what do you guys think? Is Bush standing in the way of progress, is Christianity, is it progress at all, or do you perhaps agree with Bush?
 
Christian values and such, that it could theoretically possibly lead to cloning, and that the body is holy etc. etc. etc.
From what I know, his thought pattern is probably based somewhere in Christianity, but I failed to find any decent more elaborate sources(I just saw it on the news here).
 
did your searches also tell you how that they got the original stem cells?
how they kill the developing child in the womb?
and take its stem cells?

you don't have to be christian to understand the coplications behind this issue, there is the moral issue of, is a developing baby still a baby?. is it worth it to kill a new life to save another?
would you?

Now im not going to take sides on this one im just pointing out opposing arguments. since its good to hear from both sides of the spectrum
 
Well, that's not true. These scientists took an egg-cell, and let it grow into a pre-embryo(which is just a hump of cells, no mind, no nothing) and then took stem cells from that. So that should be no problem.
 
Well, it all depens on how you define human life, doesn't it?

And since according to Christianity human life starts quite soon (remember their stance on masturbation), it comes to no suprise to me they define a heap of cells, actually inferior to a leaf of grass, as human life.

And as for the question if Christianity stands in the way of evolution - of course it does. It has done so for centuries now, in a number of fields.

But don't worry, because if there is one lesson history teaches us it is this:

Conservatists ALWAYS lose.
 
Sander said:
Well, (which is just a hump of cells, no mind, no nothing).

How do you know? Do you know them? Do they call you at home?

Note the sarcasm!

Jebus said:
And as for the question if Christianity stands in the evolution - of course it does. It has done so for centuries now, in a number of fields.

Ok, I didn't want to shove any religion vs. science debates down your throats, but since this topic is MOSTLY one sided on this issue, and I grow tired of this anti-christian crap, I'm going to shove some very useful knowledge into your head. Not now though, first I have to do some research, I know this information is out there since I have heard it so many times, but you won't believe me without a link or even then you might not since it would go against your beliefs, but hey, you say your open to opinions and facts. I have to go to work in a few hours, and I'm in school now, so I don't have time, but either tonight or tomorrow night. Like I said, the reason I do it is because some people don't say anything about Christians until they have something bad to say.
 
PS, please remember that this topic is about an hour old, and only three different people have posted in it. Furthermore, I posted a question in the post, not a statement.
 
Can't wait. But I have to agree with you that my previous comment was a bit over-simplified. Of course Christianity hasn't done all bad things.

In fact, they have helped evolution in some fields. Then I refer to the preservation of certain texts, education, etc. etc.

But I don't see how you don't agree with me that they haven't hindered evolution in quite some fields. Just think of the inquisition, for example... And hell, the Church even tried to stop positive evolution inside it own religion...

That of course isn't an attack on ALL Christians, because when I refer to history, I mainly refer to the Catholic church. Most other christian religions aren't quite as conservative. Take the Anglican (or howdoyaspellit) church in the Early Modern times, for example.

Anyway, please don't take this personal, because it wasn't meant that way. Hell, I'm a christian too...
But in this case, Bush once again shows that the Christian doctrine can easily be manipulated by people with conservative ideas. As it has been plenty of times by other people throughout its history.

I mean, just sayin'...
 
Oh yeah, and that was supposed to be 'stands in the way of evolution'. Corrected it.


EDIT: and by 'evolution' I mean scientific and cultural evolution.
 
I know that Christianity has caused some things nasty, and stopped some things good before. But my point being for one, Christianity is the most bashed religion, for two, I don't believe in evolution because of a lot of very interesting information that you don't read in the science books. This is what I will show you later.
 
I suppose you mean human evolution as supposed to creationism, then. That was just a typ0 from my part, though :)

And about Christianity being the most bashed religion - I doubt it. I think the Islam is getting slandered on way more.

And really, on the subject of creationism, I have a 575 pages long university handbook on Pre- and Protohistory lying about two meters away from me. So, don't go there...
 
Quoted from a guy who knows more about this then I do

The ancient Hebrew says NOTHING about 7 days at all, and can even be interperated to suggest something more evolutionary then it came out of nowhere.

In the bible creation is explained thus:

Creation of Light

God saw the light, that it was good. God divided the light from the darkness, and called the light Day and the darkness Night.

This is a first stage of creation

Creation of water and sky.

About 4 billion years ago liquid water appeared on the planet.

Creation of Dry Land

About 3.5 billion years ago land began forming on this planet. It was land that was for the most part water logged. The bible also mentions the creation of plants at this time.

As far as most scientists I've heard of know very simple early plants developing probably are responsible for the oxygen creation in our atmosphere. Making life for other forms of existence possible.

Living Creatures Created in the Water

About 700-800m years ago softbodied multicellular creatures began appearing in the world's waters.

Living Creatures Created on the Land

About 300m to 400m years ago life began in earnest on the land masses of the earth.

--------------

Now what I find particularly interesting is that the biblical order of creation corresponds quite well with the scientific order.

I think most scientists will say the earth began out of the big bang. Possibly the "light" described in the beginning. In the beginning of the earth's history I also believe most geologists will tell you it was nothing but a void rock.

First, liquid develops on the planet.

Second, landmasses slowly begin to move out from underneath the seas.

Plant life begins to develop. Now most will say that bacteria came first, not plants. But technically speaking the early bacteria were able to sustain themselves because they developed photosynthesis. Which makes them fairly plant-like.

Very simple creatures develop in the world's oceans.

Very simple creatures make their way onto the land.

Land animals evolve from then.

Now I think it is pretty remarkable that if the bible is nothing more than a collection of old myths that these ancient humans developed a myth that so closely follows the order of things.

What would make a simple man 5,000 years ago say, "Hmm, let's say water came first, not land."

In fact, if I was a smart fellow 5,000 years ago and was using logic, I'd think landmasses came before water. And that "rain" created water on the earth, which covered up part of the landmasses.

But that wasn't really the case. The earth starts out void, water forms. Then land masses develop through the water.

Now of course rocks and the crust had to have been present before the creation of water. But technically speaking "land" as it were back when the bible was written was not considered to be "land" if it was under 7m of water.

And why in their myth making did they decide to say plant life came first? Why not animal life? Why in their myth making did they say water was where animals original developed and not land?

The big problem of course is that the bible says all of this happened over a period of seven days. Which any geologist or even any simple person with a very basic grasp of science will tell you is just ludicrous.

As I've said before though, Genesis doesn't actually say the earth et al. was created in 7 days. That is just what the Catholic Church interpreted the Ancient Greek to mean, which in itself was just interpreting the Ancient Hebrew.


Sander, what is scince without morality? True, Christian morality may be flawed, but without a guiding light Science does infanitely more harm to everybody then to good.

There is a conversation on the subject in Solaris.......see the Tarkovsky version.

And just how useful stem cell reaserch is is up to debate. I have heard very many people more knoladgeable in the area say that continuing stem cell reaserch is silly, and there is little hope for the area.

I also find it funny that my faith is taking shit from a European who probably projectile vomits over the idea of -gasp- genetically engineerd food.
 
Did you even read what I said, CCR? *sigh*

Ah well, here I go again, point by point by point:

Sander, what is scince without morality? True, Christian morality may be flawed, but without a guiding light Science does infanitely more harm to everybody then to good.
And why do you assume that science has no morality? Why do you assume that science does not use morality, and that science should also use Christian morality? Current science uses WESTERN morality, not Christian. This is just as good morality as any other morality.
One of the things where this is shows, is where most(if not all) scientists agree that reproductive cloning is morally irresponsible, because it can easily create defective children, lead to sudden death, and has a lot of weird side-effects from what we know about animal cloning.

And just how useful stem cell reaserch is is up to debate. I have heard very many people more knoladgeable in the area say that continuing stem cell reaserch is silly, and there is little hope for the area.
...
How more knowledgeable can someone be than someone who has cloned stem cells? And why do you assume that the people who did that are somehow less knowledgeable than those you are referring to?

I also find it funny that my faith is taking shit from a European who probably projectile vomits over the idea of -gasp- genetically engineerd food.
A) Your faith is not taking shit from me, I was asking opinions. Read what I say.
B) Genetically engineered food is different. It has been genetically altered, the stem cells have not, they have merely been replicated. Difference.
 
ConstinpatedCraprunner said:
without a guiding light Science does infanitely more harm to everybody then to good.

Couldn't agree with you more, on the regulation part. You should read 'Brave New World' by Huxley (if you haven't already). It creates an eery vision of what a world without morality would lead to...

And just how useful stem cell reaserch is is up to debate. I have heard very many people more knoladgeable in the area say that continuing stem cell reaserch is silly, and there is little hope for the area.

Well, I do suppose the people who engage in stem cell research know what they're doing. I mean, it is probably one of the hardest sciences on earth, and even if there is but a glimmer of hope, we should grasp it.

I also find it funny that my faith is taking shit from a European who probably projectile vomits over the idea of -gasp- genetically engineerd food.

OUR faith. This may sound silly, but if I wasn't a Catholic, I wouldn't bash our faith. You seem to have that typical American 'If you're not with us, you're against us' stance.
And the European stance against GMO's has very little to do with morality or religion. It's not like we all go thow holy water over GMO's or start exorcising genetically engineered plantlife. It's all about ecology, my friend.
 
The main reason why Bush and the Republican party wish to ban cloning is tied to their opposition to abortion. The feeling is that life begins at conception, and many stem cell lives were derived from fertilized zygotes. Their viewpoint also extends into creationism, and the idea that only God can create life.

Cloning is made controversial by geneticists because of troubles having to do with epigenetics. There are traits in the genome that are passed on generationally but are not encoded by the genome, via methylation, etc. Also telomere shortening is a problem that hasn't been addressed yet, remember Dolly the amazing 10 year old newborn sheep? There is no method of controlling for these states as of yet, therefore geneticists question whether there will ever be, so question whether medicine from cloning is a good avenue in research.

I think organized religion gets in the way of science, but not religion in and of itself. A group is in control of religion, whether they be Cardinals or Imams, and their power is always threatened by new ideas, such as the world rotating around the sun, etc.
 
Murdoch said:
I think organized religion gets in the way of science, but not religion in and of itself. A group is in control of religion, whether they be Cardinals or Imams, and their power is always threatened by new ideas, such as the world rotating around the sun, etc.


What I was trying to say. You just said it way better. Cheers!
 
And why do you assume that science has no morality? Why do you assume that science does not use morality, and that science should also use Christian morality? Current science uses WESTERN morality, not Christian. This is just as good morality as any other morality.
It's a non exsistant morality. Look at all the cultures that tried to seperate themselves completely from religion.......the Maoists, the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Leninists, the more extreme French revolutionaries. Without widespread religion to watch over people like Goering, Gobbels and all those other fun freaks, a moral society is ulitimately been proven to be impossible.
One of the things where this is shows, is where most(if not all) scientists agree that reproductive cloning is morally irresponsible, because it can easily create defective children, lead to sudden death, and has a lot of weird side-effects from what we know about animal cloning.
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62258,00.html

How more knowledgeable can someone be than someone who has cloned stem cells? And why do you assume that the people who did that are somehow less knowledgeable than those you are referring to?
It has been a year sense this field was seriously considerd to be a likely scource of benefits. I dont know, I have lost interest in the subject.

B) Genetically engineered food is different. It has been genetically altered, the stem cells have not, they have merely been replicated. Difference.
Among the most powerfully ignorant statements here. I simply cannot comprehend how changing a few lines of genetic code to help billions of starving people across the world could be considerd a "sin" and "unsafe" when killing a fetus to suck the life out of it for your own selfish purposes could be considerd a great work.
Not only that, but look at me. I am the product of 16 years of that "unsafe product", and am I going to die of cancer anytime soon?
 
ConstinpatedCraprunner said:
And why do you assume that science has no morality? Why do you assume that science does not use morality, and that science should also use Christian morality? Current science uses WESTERN morality, not Christian. This is just as good morality as any other morality.
It's a non exsistant morality. Look at all the cultures that tried to seperate themselves completely from religion.......the Maoists, the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Leninists, the more extreme French revolutionaries. Without widespread religion to watch over people like Goering, Gobbels and all those other fun freaks, a moral society is ulitimately been proven to be impossible.


European rulership has been completely seperated from religion. And, IMHO, they rule with WAY more morality then the USA does.


B) Genetically engineered food is different. It has been genetically altered, the stem cells have not, they have merely been replicated. Difference.
Among the most powerfully ignorant statements here. I simply cannot comprehend how changing a few lines of genetic code to help billions of starving people across the world could be considerd a "sin" and "unsafe"

Among the most powerfully ignorant statements here.

1. "sin": read my previous post. Europeans don't use such simplistic statements.

2. "unsafe": It IS unsafe to the diversity of plantlife.

3. GMO's will never help the billions of starving people in the world. I've already wrote the reasons to that down in another thread somewhere, and unfortunately I don't like repeating myself.


when killing a fetus to suck the life out of it for your own selfish purposes could be considerd a great work.

Not a fetus, a zygote. That is nothing more then some cells. And IMO, if something isn't sentient it's not life.
 
Back
Top