with all the discussion here about the dangers of religion, its morality issues, and so on i thought it would be interesting to have a discussion (especially given the large population of science oriented folks on this board) where we discuss the same issues with respect to science.
now this is not meant to be some i want to go back to the dark ages thread, but more so that recognition that there are moral, ethical, and hell survival issues with science that need to be addressed.. michael crichton as most know is both a famous author and an extremely bright individual who attended harvard medical school, in his novel jurrassic park he raised some issues with science and its dangers: .
"jurassic park was intended to warn the general public concerning the inherent dangers of biotechnology first of all, but also science in general.
JGNAT,
I don't know, being able to breath under water might be kind of cool, but seriously, your examples are exactly the kinds of stuff I worry about, people monkeying around with humans or animals for that matter on a genetic level and coming mup with some really nasty outcomes. Goes back to that, yeah we can do it, but should we do it issue that is so worriesome to me.
just read in the newspaper that some 54% of americans favor creationism and diss darwin.
.
i know, never trust a stat you haven't faked yourself, but... is creationism (especially yec) really that wide spread in the us?
Okay Funky, I concede your point, if it comes on the ballot where I live, I'll vote against any mention of God in any class except maybe philosophy or the like. Really, if the parents believe, the kids are going to get it at home, and that's fine, and in the near future I can't see anyone growing up in even the most athiest of homes not being exposed to religion at some point, it does not need to be in the schools. Edited to add: For anyone that thinks these sorts of discussions/threads are a waste of time, I offer myself as an example, because of this thread I have changed some of my view points, to the point where I will vote differently on issues should it come to ballot.
with all the discussion here about the dangers of religion, its morality issues, and so on i thought it would be interesting to have a discussion (especially given the large population of science oriented folks on this board) where we discuss the same issues with respect to science.
now this is not meant to be some i want to go back to the dark ages thread, but more so that recognition that there are moral, ethical, and hell survival issues with science that need to be addressed.. michael crichton as most know is both a famous author and an extremely bright individual who attended harvard medical school, in his novel jurrassic park he raised some issues with science and its dangers: .
"jurassic park was intended to warn the general public concerning the inherent dangers of biotechnology first of all, but also science in general.
This was a great thread and the folks are right, you can't put the genie back in the bottle, we can't unknow what we know and the advancement of science is not going to stop. I guess its after watching some old sci fi movies where after they finally kill whatever it was that escaped from the lab somebody looks at the camera and says "there are some places and some things that man is not ment to go and know" or something to that effect that one can get thinking about the dangers of science, or excuse me, its applications by people.
It really is all about people, which as a side comment is why I think gun control is stupid, but anyway it is just scary with nuclear weapons, bio warfare agents, and (dare I say it) God knows what else out there lying around.
I guess its interesting, you had the Godless commies, and the right wing christians with nukes for the last 60 years and doomsday never came. I just worry for my children with the weapons of mass destruction available and obviously those who don't have a high regard for human life running around, well, can you understand why I might sometimes wish for a little less scientifically advanced age? But as a species I hope we continue to grow and we make it without blowing ourselves up, or being wiped out by some bio warfare plauge.
just read in the newspaper that some 54% of americans favor creationism and diss darwin.
.
i know, never trust a stat you haven't faked yourself, but... is creationism (especially yec) really that wide spread in the us?
But I can punch holes in a "god" thought, and I can't punch any holes in a "stuff has always existed" thought
Dave, why is that? Why is it easier to punch holes in a God concept rather than the stuff has always been here concept? Because you see the stuff, is that what it is? I find it just as difficult to look at the heavens and say, that stuff just always was, I can't get my head around that, and I would think that principles like entropy would be against the stuff always being here. Also, way back in my college days I remember in my physics class the professor saying there was no good explination for why there was anything (matter, stuff) rather than nothing, that parsimony and economy would favor nothing.
And do you get Discover magazine? Can anyone tell me if that's a good mag or is it a hack job? In Discover this month two supposedly big time astronomers have been saying the big bang is not correct for years and I guess some in the community are beginning to listen.
with all the discussion here about the dangers of religion, its morality issues, and so on i thought it would be interesting to have a discussion (especially given the large population of science oriented folks on this board) where we discuss the same issues with respect to science.
now this is not meant to be some i want to go back to the dark ages thread, but more so that recognition that there are moral, ethical, and hell survival issues with science that need to be addressed.. michael crichton as most know is both a famous author and an extremely bright individual who attended harvard medical school, in his novel jurrassic park he raised some issues with science and its dangers: .
"jurassic park was intended to warn the general public concerning the inherent dangers of biotechnology first of all, but also science in general.
Damn, the darkside beckons. *****Big Dog walks off muttering and scratching his head thinking of his next thread vis a' vis science*****
with all the discussion here about the dangers of religion, its morality issues, and so on i thought it would be interesting to have a discussion (especially given the large population of science oriented folks on this board) where we discuss the same issues with respect to science.
now this is not meant to be some i want to go back to the dark ages thread, but more so that recognition that there are moral, ethical, and hell survival issues with science that need to be addressed.. michael crichton as most know is both a famous author and an extremely bright individual who attended harvard medical school, in his novel jurrassic park he raised some issues with science and its dangers: .
"jurassic park was intended to warn the general public concerning the inherent dangers of biotechnology first of all, but also science in general.
we just have to watch out for those evil scientists and headless clones that want to take over the verld
LOL, isn't that the truth. I mean its always those mad genius types plotting to take over the world. Tetra is probably down in his basement mixing up a vat of clone warriors to do his bidding.
just read in the newspaper that some 54% of americans favor creationism and diss darwin.
.
i know, never trust a stat you haven't faked yourself, but... is creationism (especially yec) really that wide spread in the us?
Steve,
Your question is the same basically as mine, where did everything (matter, stars, galaxies, etc.) come from, either it always was or it came from somplace, but then, how did it get there, and so on. To me the same dilemma people have with an eternal God, I have a problem with an eternal universe.
just read in the newspaper that some 54% of americans favor creationism and diss darwin.
.
i know, never trust a stat you haven't faked yourself, but... is creationism (especially yec) really that wide spread in the us?
TS,
That makes sense, that's where I was thinking the idea of God as an origin should go for the most, though I might go so far as to at least mention it in a cosmology class with advice to sign up for a philosophy class for further study.
As Columbo used to say, just one more question, I understand your hardline on testable items belonging in science clase, or in this case a cosmology class. The question: are the Big Bang theory, Steady State, or any other of the current origins theories testable in the way that you mean it?
.
the rat is getting drunk, so early in the day..... cheers
JH you lush. Keep posting, it will be fun to watch you get drunk and it will be interesting to see what your posts and typing are like.
just read in the newspaper that some 54% of americans favor creationism and diss darwin.
.
i know, never trust a stat you haven't faked yourself, but... is creationism (especially yec) really that wide spread in the us?
Steve,
Does it sound a whole lot more convincing to say, the universe always just, was?
Dave,
Mention them all, lump them together I guess, but it seems that if you are going to talk origins something would have to be said.
Mention God in sex ed, hmm, no, but do we mention morality, or just tell the kids get it on as much as you can as long as you wear a condom?
