Churches rejecting science altogether

[donsnow]

That’s the point I was originally trying to make though, that science and faith aren’t this opposition and science doesn’t attack religion - people may use it for that purpose but if used correctly faith and science should work alongside one another. It’s like just because I **can ** use a baseball bat to beat someone with doesn’t make baseball bats evil - the evil is the one who wields it incorrectly.

Telling people that science is evil is ignorant - you wouldn’t go around telling someone that mathematics or grammar is evil, it’s just ridiculous. So why do the same with science? They are disciplines dedicated to the study of various phenomenon in our world and each has their merits and flaws.

Actually, PerfectTiming,

I’m with you, that science and faith can complement each other. There should be no squabbling and finger pointing between the two.
I think that part of the squabble among protestants is a lack of respect for science, just like there’s science types exercising a lack of respect for the accomplishments of faith.

God’s love,
Don

 

[kbachler]

Hi, kbachler,

Since we’re discussing the OP again, let me refresh our memories with this reminder:

So, actually, we’re looking at why do some churches teach the bad side of science and why do science types not accept a well meaning critique of the science agenda. Because science does have its good and bad sides.
Just like Protestant churches have their good and bad sides.

Do I have that right?

Now, to refresh myself with kbachler side stepping the imperfections of the science establishment:

I am admitting, that some churches are wrong to defame the science establishment of its evil and not at the same time mention that science has its good side.

I have yet to see a science type take responsibility for the shortcomings of the science establishment, and admit that their are ethical and social abuses by the science agenda.
Why is that?

I’m trying to see all the angles of this discussion. How am I doing?
(Please, no more evolution posts. I don’t want us to get shut down.)

God loves all of you,
Don

First, I think that there certainly is a “conscience” within science. Is it perfect? No. And it won’t be. It’s a collection of people from various backgrounds, countries, social strata and religions.

In a lot of ways, the conscience in science started with Einstein. But keep in mind that once we start talking about the conscience of science, we are no longer talking about SCIENCE per se, but rather about individual scientists and their beliefs.

From a SCIENCE perspective every scientist should be an agnostic. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t individual beliefs. Some scientists will say they see the hand of God in things, and others will say that to jump to a belief in God is silly.

I don’t have a problem with either kind of person having and expressing their belief. I have a problem when someone is a representative of science and they don’t clearly articulate what science deals with versus their own personal beliefs.

In general, science is not about ethics, although scientists can be. Science is about how the world works, period, end of story. Einstein’s work was to lead to a better understanding of the universe. It eventually led to the atomic bomb. He was a pacifist and
had been for some time, yet he was concerned enough that Hitler might be able to develop a bomb first that he urged Roosevelt to work on a bomb. (He never really dreamt of it being used against the Japanese.) The technology that came out of that better understanding was horrible.

Science can lead to technology (tools.) The use of those tools is in the hand of men, not the hand of science.

 

[edwest2]

Hi Don,

Here is the problem. Leading scientists reject God.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

The article was published in Nature.

Science is not done for nothing. Let’s look at who funds science and who steers science today. How about the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA?

I think people here should look up the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951.

When I go through various science related sites on the internet, there are those who purposely wish to create an us and them situation between science and religion. For example. “How do you deal with people whose beliefs you know are full of ****?”

It is wrong to have a science is evil mindset, but I’ve never seen Richard Dawkins corrected on TV for the interjection of his personal beliefs about a being that science cannot study. Where is his empirical evidence for the God Delusion?

So with some Churches, seeing clear attacks on their beliefs by scientists, I can understand why some react as they do. A few choice words from Sam Harris:

secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=harris_27_2&section=library

Here he does to his fellow scientists exactly what he should not do. He questions their very rationality because a few listen to the Pope. He calls them “pod people.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[donsnow]

First, I think that there certainly is a “conscience” within science. Is it perfect? No. And it won’t be. It’s a collection of people from various backgrounds, countries, social strata and religions.

In a lot of ways, the conscience in science started with Einstein. But keep in mind that once we start talking about the conscience of science, we are no longer talking about SCIENCE per se, but rather about individual scientists and their beliefs.

From a SCIENCE perspective every scientist should be an agnostic. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t individual beliefs. Some scientists will say they see the hand of God in things, and others will say that to jump to a belief in God is silly.

I don’t have a problem with either kind of person having and expressing their belief. I have a problem when someone is a representative of science and they don’t clearly articulate what science deals with versus their own personal beliefs.

In general, science is not about ethics, although scientists can be. Science is about how the world works, period, end of story. Einstein’s work was to lead to a better understanding of the universe. It eventually led to the atomic bomb. He was a pacifist and
had been for some time, yet he was concerned enough that Hitler might be able to develop a bomb first that he urged Roosevelt to work on a bomb. (He never really dreamt of it being used against the Japanese.) The technology that came out of that better understanding was horrible.

Science can lead to technology (tools.) The use of those tools is in the hand of men, not the hand of science.

Hi, kbachler,

I kept looking for a paragraph that demonstrated where the people of science have indeed admitted the faults of science as faults, without whitewashing those faults. That science types state, “In general, science is not about ethics, although scientists can be.” comes across that science types try to lay the lack of morals and ethics found in science on anonymous scientists.

Some science types even plead that the public doesn’t understand science, to white wash the lack of morals and ethics in some scientific endeavors.

Well, I not only say that it’s evil for some pastor to condemn all science, which is a search for truth amongst all the data. Just I also say it’s evil for some molecular biologist to put human proteins in vegetable DNA, for other humans to eat unknowingly eat.

Let me ask a question that I think is germane to the OP. Just as Christianity exposes quack preachers to the public, why doesn’t science expose the evil doers of science to the public?

Why won’t some science types straight up accept an honest critique from non-science types?

God loves you,
Don

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Well, in a sense man is a fish. Humans are members of the clade of jawed fishes and their descendants, the gnathostomes, as indeed are all tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) as well as lobe finned and ray finned fishes, and sharks and other cartiliginous fishes.

Cladistically humans are (in a series of clades becoming narrower) animals, animals with bilateral symmetry, deuterostomes, chordates, vertebrates, jawed vertebrates, lobe-finned fishes (sarcopterygii), amniotes, synapsids, mammals, primates, catarhinni, great apes, and finally Homo genus

Here’s waving my fin at you

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I realize you directed this comment of yours to grannymh. Hope you don’t mind me adding onto what you have stated.

I support the Great Ape Trust : “a scientific research facility in Des Moines, Iowa, dedicated to understanding the origins and future of culture, language, tools and intelligence, and to the preservation of endangered great apes in their natural habitats. Announced in 2002 and receiving its first ape residents in 2004, Great Ape Trust is home to a colony of seven bonobos involved in noninvasive interdisciplinary studies of their cognitive and communicative capabilities, and to two orangutans.”

**Great Apes in the wild (family hominidae) **

*Compare All Borneo Orangutan Sumatran Orangutan W. GorillaE. Gorilla Chimpanzee Bonobo Human

Pongo Pymaeus1 Bornean Orangutan 54,000 Est.
Pongo p. pygmaeus 3,000 - 4,500 Est.
Pongo p. wurmbii 35,000 Est.
Pongo p. morio 15,000 Est.

Pongo Abelli1 Sumatran Orangutan 6,600 Est.

Gorilla Gorilla Western Gorilla 94,700 Est.
Gorilla g. gorilla Western Lowland gorilla 94,500 Est.
Gorilla g. diehli Cross River gorilla 200 Est.

Gorilla Beringei Eastern Gorilla 17,500 Est.
Gorilla b. beringei2 Mountain gorilla 700 Est.
Gorilla b. graueri Eastern Lowland gorilla 16,900 Est.*

Pan Troglodytes3 Chimpanzee 203,000 Est.
Pan t. schweinfurthii Eastern chimpanzee 76,400-119,600 Est.
Pan t. verus Western chimpanzee 21,300-55,600 Est.
Pan t. troglodytes Central chimpanzee 70,000-116,500 Est.
Pan t. vellerosus Nigeria chimpanzee 5,000-8,000 Est.

Pan Paniscus Bonobo 20,000 - 50,000 Est.

Homo Sapiens Human 6 Billion + Est.*greatapetrust.org/great-apes/statistics/

Ape
Species that are members of the Families Hylobatidae (gibbons or “lesser apes”) and Hominidae (great apes: chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, orangutan and human).greatapetrust.org/library/glossary/

History of Ape Language can be read here:

greatapetrust.org/science/history-of-ape-language/

I also support :
•*Behavior has an evolutionary history that persists across related species. Chimpanzees are our closest relatives, separated from us by a mere 2 percent difference in DNA sequence. We and they share behaviors that are characteristic of highly social primates, including nurturing, cooperation, altruism, and even some facial expressions. Genes are evolutionary glue, binding all of life in a single history that dates back some 3.5 billion years. Conserved behaviors are part of that history, which is written in the language of nature’s universal information molecule—DNA. *ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml

Ah, you must know that I am not a creationist. Also I should mention that the Pope has his own scientific advisory commitee of which there are 40 Nobel Prize winners. None of the scientists are creationists.

 

[donsnow]

Hi Don,

Here is the problem. Leading scientists reject God.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

The article was published in Nature.

Science is not done for nothing. Let’s look at who funds science and who steers science today. How about the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA?

I think people here should look up the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951.

When I go through various science related sites on the internet, there are those who purposely wish to create an us and them situation between science and religion. For example. “How do you deal with people whose beliefs you know are full of ****?”

It is wrong to have a science is evil mindset, but I’ve never seen Richard Dawkins corrected on TV for the interjection of his personal beliefs about a being that science cannot study. Where is his empirical evidence for the God Delusion?

So with some Churches, seeing clear attacks on their beliefs by scientists, I can understand why some react as they do. A few choice words from Sam Harris:

secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=harris_27_2&section=library

Here he does to his fellow scientists exactly what he should not do. He questions their very rationality because a few listen to the Pope. He calls them “pod people.”

Peace,
Ed

Thanks, Ed,

For these links.
I find them rather disheartening. Of course, all this nay-saying about God and Jesus Christ is a lot softer than what Jesus the Christ said would happen to those of us who follow Him. And, there are people in Africa, Near, Mid and Far East dying for their faith in the Lamb of God. Others are imprisoned, also just like He prophesied.
Each of us lives and dies for something. I’d rather my life and death be with Jesus the Christ.

God loves all of you,
Don

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Obviously, the Catholic Church doesn’t reject science as noted in my previous message.

Regarding science, I stated the following over on this topic: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=527636&page=2

“I support the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. From it’s website it plainly states, “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” It plainly states that evolution is a theory and a fact.”
nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

People can explore the link above and learn from it. Some very valuable information is noted therein such as the following:

Compatibility of Science and Religion

*Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations. Because biological evolution accounts for events that are also central concerns of religion — including the origins of biological diversity and especially the origins of humans — evolution has been a contentious idea within society since it was first articulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858.

Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith. Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.*
nationalacademies.org/evolution/Compatibility.html

There are two very good articles that I think are good with comments by David M. Byers, an official from the United States Bishop’s Office who has recently passed away.

1. americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3996
2. teachingaboutreligion.org/WhatsNew/catholicevolutionstatement.htm

Last but not least, the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Annual Meeting took place on February 17-21, 2011. It was extremely informative. I suggest people explore the website and links therein. aaas.confex.com/aaas/2011/webprogram/Session2837.html

Also, I’ve just noted an old article from 20 years ago by Stephen Gould. What can I say except that I’m over 50 years old and when I was in 9th grade we learned about Darwin in my biology class. I should also mention that university professors from around the world retire where I live. I’ve been exposed to the creme de la creme including priests that were and still are phenomenal. Whenever I call this one priest that I’ve known for over 20 years, he always asks me, “Where are you calling from?” I say, “Home.” He replies, “Home is in heaven.” I love him dearly. Also, he reminds me of what Saint Teresa of Avila said, “Let nothing disturb you, Let nothing frighten you, All things are passing away: God never changes. Patience obtains all things. Whoever has God lacks nothing; God alone suffices”.

 

[hecd2]

Well, I not only say that it’s evil for some pastor to condemn all science, which is a search for truth amongst all the data. Just I also say it’s evil for some molecular biologist to put human proteins in vegetable DNA, for other humans to eat unknowingly eat.

I don’t post much these days but I can’t let this pass unchallenged. As far as I know projects to use plants to express human protein are mostly based on the need for biopharmaceutical therapies to treat serious human conditions such as:

Human insulin to treat Type 1 diabetes
Alpa-L-uronidase to treat lyosomal storage disorder
Human growth hormone to treat growth disorders
Lactoferrin which has anti-viral, anti-bacterial anti-fungal properties and is also used for preventing severe infections in cystic fibrosis
Anti-TNF for treating rheumatoid arthritis
plus many more.

There is no more reason for you to unknowingly eat any of these transgenic plants than for you to unknowingly ingest the drugs in your tap water.

In addition there is a project to express in rice recombinant human proteins normally found in human milk (immunoglobulins, lactoferrin and lysozyme) that provide neonates and infants with resistance to infection and the ability to recover more quickly from infection so that milk formula can more readily mimic the benefits of human milk - a project that has particular resonance in areas of deprivation, war, famine and epidemics.

Now you might think that this is evil, but I am unashamed in saying that, provided that it is properly regulated and controlled, it is a good thing.

Let me ask a question that I think is germane to the OP. Just as Christianity exposes quack preachers to the public, why doesn’t science expose the evil doers of science to the public?

Scientists who cheat, invent results and plagiarise are exposed by their profession. But perhaps that’s not what you were thinking of. Why don’t you give us an example of evil-doers of science (and if your example is the people working on transgenic plants for therapeutic use, then see above - but in any case this work *is *publicised not as an expose but as a celebration). So give us your example.

(BTW - how and when does “Christianity” expose quack preachers?)

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Thanks, Ed,

For these links.
I find them rather disheartening. Of course, all this nay-saying about God and Jesus Christ is a lot softer than what Jesus the Christ said would happen to those of us who follow Him. And, there are people in Africa, Near, Mid and Far East dying for their faith in the Lamb of God. Others are imprisoned, also just like He prophesied.
Each of us lives and dies for something. I’d rather my life and death be with Jesus the Christ.

God loves all of you,
Don

Don,

I offered those links not to dishearten but to illuminate. Are scientists ever called on the carpet for, say, appearing on TV and denying the work of God like Richard Dawkins? Can anyone say his goal in doing so is scientific?

Don, my point is that there are at least a few scientists who are basically saying - science is it. It is the way of knowing. Religion is just pretending to know something. Why did Jesus start some of His talks with “he who has ears to hear, let him hear”? Their hearts were darkened back then. They saw but did not perceive and heard but did not understand.

We understand Don.

God bless you,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

By the way - and to respond directly to the OP, the reason that some denominations and some religious individuals reject science altogether is rather plain to see. It arises from a direct conflict between the evidence and reason on the one hand and the interpretation of revelation and tradition by the denomination or the individual on the other hand. So, for example, if one is committed to a particular literalistic interpretation of scripture that is in direct contradiction to what science demonstrates to be the case, then one is bound either to dismiss the efficacy of science altogether or to engage in special pleading to challenge the particular scientific conclusions that are in conflict with one’s belief. The latter approach can seldom be isolated to a small area of science - since the scientific edifice is made up of a huge number of interdependent and interlocking elements, any attempt to pull one area down leads inevitably to rejection of other areas of science, ultimately leading to rejection of a range of well accepted science disciplines or all of them. We see that here on this forum over and over again with arguments about cosmology, earth sciences, biology, geocentrism and so on. The Catholic Church herself, although she has had her regrettable incidents, is generally an exemplary supporter and promoter of the scientific method, understanding as she does the theological and philosophical consequences of setting up a conflict bedtween revelation and tradition on one hand, and science on the other. Sadly, I have noticed an increasing tendency of some individual Catholics over the last few years to take a far less integrated view and there are some who reject almost every standard scientific discipline in a way that is more akin to fundamental Protestantism than the Catholicism in which I was raised.

One or two have suggested that scientists should not express their atheism - but why should they not? Believers look at the world and what they see reinforces their faith and they say so. Atheists look at the world and they see no evidence that compels them to belief and faith and they say so. In neither case are these views expressed in scientific publications - both believers and atheists are using the entire experience of their lives, including what they know from their professions to reach and to express a worldview. What is wrong with that?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[donsnow]

I don’t post much these days but I can’t let this pass unchallenged. As far as I know projects to use plants to express human protein are mostly based on the need for biopharmaceutical therapies to treat serious human conditions such as:

Human insulin to treat Type 1 diabetes
Alpa-L-uronidase to treat lyosomal storage disorder
Human growth hormone to treat growth disorders
Lactoferrin which has anti-viral, anti-bacterial anti-fungal properties and is also used for preventing severe infections in cystic fibrosis
Anti-TNF for treating rheumatoid arthritis
plus many more.

There is no more reason for you to unknowingly eat any of these transgenic plants than for you to unknowingly ingest the drugs in your tap water.

In addition there is a project to express in rice recombinant human proteins normally found in human milk (immunoglobulins, lactoferrin and lysozyme) that provide neonates and infants with resistance to infection and the ability to recover more quickly from infection so that milk formula can more readily mimic the benefits of human milk - a project that has particular resonance in areas of deprivation, war, famine and epidemics.

Now you might think that this is evil, but I am unashamed in saying that, provided that it is properly regulated and controlled, it is a good thing.

Scientists who cheat, invent results and plagiarise are exposed by their profession. But perhaps that’s not what you were thinking of. Why don’t you give us an example of evil-doers of science (and if your example is the people working on transgenic plants for therapeutic use, then see above - but in any case this work *is *publicised not as an expose but as a celebration). So give us your example.

(BTW - how and when does “Christianity” expose quack preachers?)

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Hi, hecd2,

In the New Testament, one of the prophecies say that toward the end, people will call evil good.

All the examples of human protein in plants is evildoing, called good, by the children of this Age. It’ just that simple.

I eschew your link on evolution, because we are not to discuss evolution nor atheism until the moderators give the ok. We just got this thread returned from being sidetracked to evolution.

Please, no more posts about evolution.

This thread is about why some churches reject science.
Our Catholic Church does not reject science; to the contrary, she has often led science in its discoveries.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

Don,

I offered those links not to dishearten but to illuminate. Are scientists ever called on the carpet for, say, appearing on TV and denying the work of God like Richard Dawkins? Can anyone say his goal in doing so is scientific?

Don, my point is that there are at least a few scientists who are basically saying - science is it. It is the way of knowing. Religion is just pretending to know something. Why did Jesus start some of His talks with “he who has ears to hear, let him hear”? Their hearts were darkened back then. They saw but did not perceive and heard but did not understand.

We understand Don.

God bless you,
Ed

Thanks, ed,

I understand that.

I just hope some of the science types (people who put science before salvation) see those links.

Thanks, again, for posting them.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

By the way - and to respond directly to the OP, the reason that some denominations and some religious individuals reject science altogether is rather plain to see. It arises from a direct conflict between the evidence and reason on the one hand and the interpretation of revelation and tradition by the denomination or the individual on the other hand. So, for example, if one is committed to a particular literalistic interpretation of scripture that is in direct contradiction to what science demonstrates to be the case, then one is bound either to dismiss the efficacy of science altogether or to engage in special pleading to challenge the particular scientific conclusions that are in conflict with one’s belief. The latter approach can seldom be isolated to a small area of science - since the scientific edifice is made up of a huge number of interdependent and interlocking elements, any attempt to pull one area down leads inevitably to rejection of other areas of science, ultimately leading to rejection of a range of well accepted science disciplines or all of them. We see that here on this forum over and over again with arguments about cosmology, earth sciences, biology, geocentrism and so on. The Catholic Church herself, although she has had her regrettable incidents, is generally an exemplary supporter and promoter of the scientific method, understanding as she does the theological and philosophical consequences of setting up a conflict bedtween revelation and tradition on one hand, and science on the other. Sadly, I have noticed an increasing tendency of some individual Catholics over the last few years to take a far less integrated view and there are some who reject almost every standard scientific discipline in a way that is more akin to fundamental Protestantism than the Catholicism in which I was raised.

One or two have suggested that scientists should not express their atheism - but why should they not? Believers look at the world and what they see reinforces their faith and they say so. Atheists look at the world and they see no evidence that compels them to belief and faith and they say so. In neither case are these views expressed in scientific publications - both believers and atheists are using the entire experience of their lives, including what they know from their professions to reach and to express a worldview. What is wrong with that?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Well, Alec,

I have an atheist friend. I generally don’t preach to him and he generally doesn’t share his atheist philosophy with me. We talk about other things.

If Christians waited until they were led by the Spirit to proselytize, there would be a lot less conflict. And, if atheists left the ACLU alone and didn’t go around legally shoving their view down the throats of a society based on religion, there would be a lot less conflict.

Caprice?

God loves you,
Don

 

[hecd2]

All the examples of human protein in plants is evildoing, called good, by the children of this Age. It’ just that simple.

It’s not that simple to me. If using our knowledge and technology to alleviate disease and human suffering is evil then I have to question your definition of good and evil, unless you can show that the means is inherently evil. You haven’t given any reason to support your contention that it is evil other than blind assertion. My reason however to call it good is plain: it is intended to treat disease and alleviate human suffering by means which are ethically and morally neutral which seems to me to be an unqualified good.

Do you also think that it is evil to express recombinant human proteins in bacterial fermentations, the current standard method for manufacturing biotechnology protein and peptide therapy? If yes, I assume you will reject all biotech therapies should you have the misfortune to fall ill with one of the many diseases that they treat, and explain to all the millions of Type 1 insulin dependent diabetes sufferers (a disease that almost always starts in childhood) that for moral reasons they can no longer have their insulin and they’ll just have to die. On the other hand if you don’t think it’s evil to express human proteins in bacteria, then why do you consider it’s OK in bacteria but not in plants?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[donsnow]

It’s not that simple to me. If using our knowledge and technology to alleviate disease and human suffering is evil then I have to question your definition of good and evil, unless you can show that the means is inherently evil. You haven’t given any reason to support your contention that it is evil other than blind assertion. My reason however to call it good is plain: it is intended to treat disease and alleviate human suffering by means which are ethically and morally neutral which seems to me to be an unqualified good.

Do you also think that it is evil to express recombinant human proteins in bacterial fermentations, the current standard method for manufacturing biotechnology protein and peptide therapy? If yes, I assume you will reject all biotech therapies should you have the misfortune to fall ill with one of the many diseases that they treat, and explain to all the millions of Type 1 insulin dependent diabetes sufferers (a disease that almost always starts in childhood) that for moral reasons they can no longer have their insulin and they’ll just have to die. On the other hand if you don’t think it’s evil to express human proteins in bacteria, then why do you consider it’s OK in bacteria but not in plants?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Oh, Alec,

Don’t be so difficult.

It is good to use our technology to do good. We can use synthetic chemicals to gain the same end as human protein in vegetables or in animals including germs.

That prophecy I mentioned has two sides: people will say that evil is good and will say that good is evil. Technology is only what the morals and ethics of the people handle it is … technology can be good in a godly persons activities and evil in an ungodly person’s doings.

It is, just that simple.

Let me state plainly … I’m not calling anyone on this thread evil, I am merely pointing out an evil behavior by geneticists. I am not saying the geneticists that mix human DNA with other DNA are evil; but I am saying that they are doing evil. And, no good will come of it.

Nor will I in any way direct any person to eschew remedies made with a mix of human and other DNA. But, it is my Christian duty and calling to warn all people, that those remedies were produced with an evil process.

God loves you,
Don

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

It’s not that simple to me. If using our knowledge and technology to alleviate disease and human suffering is evil then I have to question your definition of good and evil, unless you can show that the means is inherently evil. You haven’t given any reason to support your contention that it is evil other than blind assertion. My reason however to call it good is plain: it is intended to treat disease and alleviate human suffering by means which are ethically and morally neutral which seems to me to be an unqualified good.

Do you also think that it is evil to express recombinant human proteins in bacterial fermentations, the current standard method for manufacturing biotechnology protein and peptide therapy? If yes, I assume you will reject all biotech therapies should you have the misfortune to fall ill with one of the many diseases that they treat, and explain to all the millions of Type 1 insulin dependent diabetes sufferers (a disease that almost always starts in childhood) that for moral reasons they can no longer have their insulin and they’ll just have to die. On the other hand if you don’t think it’s evil to express human proteins in bacteria, then why do you consider it’s OK in bacteria but not in plants?

Oh, Alec,

Don’t be so difficult.

I’m being rational, not difficult. Do you usually have a problem with people asking you to give reasons for your assertions?

It is good to use our technology to do good. We can use synthetic chemicals to gain the same end as human protein in vegetables or in animals including germs.

No, we cannot. All manner of diseases are treated only with proteins and peptides which can be produced only by recombinant techniques (ie putting the gene for the protein into something living, currently usually bacteria but in the future plants and possibly animals, and harvesting the expressed protein). I gave you some examples of those. That is how insulin-dependent diabetics are currently kept alive. There is no synthetic chemical process to make human insulin that does not involve expression of proteins in living organisms. It’s been like this for decades. (The old method of harvesting cow or pig insulin from the pancreases of slaughtered animals has many problems).

Let me state plainly … I’m not calling anyone on this thread evil, I am merely pointing out an evil behavior by geneticists. I am not saying the geneticists that mix human DNA with other DNA are evil; but I am saying that they are doing evil. And, no good will come of it.

But you still haven’t given anyone a reason for your belief that recombinant techniques are inherently evil other than a blind assertion. As for good coming of it, I suggest you find an insulin dependent diabetic (that shouldn’t be difficult - there are 151,000 insulin dependent diabetics below the age of 20 and 340,000 in total in the USA) and ask them whether they think that any good is coming from the recombinant insulin that is keeping them alive. Or ask a haemophiliac if any good is coming from her recombinant clotting factor VIIA, VIII or IX. Good is coming of it now and has been for 25 years.

Nor will I in any way direct any person to eschew remedies made with a mix of human and other DNA. But, it is my Christian duty and calling to warn all people, that those remedies were produced with an evil process.

Other than your personal idiosyncratic conviction, do you have any rationale for thinking that the process is evil? The Catholic church certainly doesn’t agree with you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[grannymh]

It’s not that simple to me.

And it is not that simple to a science-type granny.

Just as I was getting ready to add some info to your post 346, I find your well-expressed statements enlightening what the OP is dealing with. Granted that there is a point or two which I would respectfully and robustly debate.

One thing to be considered is that there are many students on CAF, including myself who is a guest student in an university anthropology course. We should try seeing science through their eyes. What is it that we really want them to learn? In my class, a discussion of routine DNA sampling turned into a discussion of ethics regarding consent of indigenous peoples in Arizona. In another class, how to analyze genetic strands was demonstrated.

My point is that if one is going to reject science, then one should know what science is doing right now. If one sees the faith/science issue as a battlefield, then one better know just where the current battles are. Just as important, one needs to update the old Darwinian issues. I am not implying that we should ignore God. I am implying that there are additional religious issues and that these call for updated tactics.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[LogisticsBranch]

My point is that if one is going to reject science, then one should know what science is doing right now. If one sees the faith/science issue as a battlefield, then one better know just where the current battles are. Just as important, one needs to update the old Darwinian issues. I am not implying that we should ignore God. I am implying that there are additional religious issues and that these call for updated tactics.

Blessings,
granny

I’m an extremely busy person but hope you will read and explore what I previously contributed on page 23. Now as far as your comment as noted above, there is not one person I personally know that rejects science. You should throughly review and read every article from this link(url) about Charles Darwin. I along with millions of others do not think we need to ‘update the old Darwinian issues’ as you put it. Charles Darwin was a genius! Here’s the link which is from NEW SCIENTIST which is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. newscientist.com/special/darwin-200. I encourage you and other viewers to look at ** Darwin at 200: How Geneticists View Him Today **. genome.gov/27529500

I hope to return later.

P.S. I have said this before and will say it again, “Science helps philosophy and theology to better understand the human being. Love, honesty and compassion make us unique. This unique human capacity extends our power to do good beyond the family. Close and enduring friendships with religious and non-religious (atheists) which make us important to others, naturally enhance our sense of significance. True friends value and accept us as we really are and allow us to return this grace. Contributions of love and support in a friend’s life, enhance our sense of personal significance as well, and bring deeper meaning to our lives so thinkth me.”

 

[grannymh]

I’m an extremely busy person but hope you will read and explore what I previously contributed on page 23. Now as far as your comment as noted above, there is not one person I personally know that rejects science. You should throughly review and read every article from this link(url) about Charles Darwin. I along with millions of others do not think we need to ‘update the old Darwinian issues’ as you put it. Charles Darwin was a genius!

I agree that Charles Darwin is a genius.

However, his work raised a number of issues for a variety of people. I am aware of some of the issues in the 1940’s and which may have been older than that period. I’ve noticed that some of the early responses to these issues still appear. Since you mentioned that not one person you personally know rejects science, you may not be aware of what has happened in different groups of people.

The OP cited her experience which I am paying attention to.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[kbachler]

I agree that Charles Darwin is a genius.

However, his work raised a number of issues for a variety of people. I am aware of some of the issues in the 1940’s and which may have been older than that period. I’ve noticed that some of the early responses to these issues still appear. Since you mentioned that not one person you personally know rejects science, you may not be aware of what has happened in different groups of people.

The OP cited her experience which I am paying attention to.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

One issue is that there are “real issues”. Another issue is that (especially among fundamentalists) old resolved issues often get recycled in the general public as though they are still issues.