Thread: Religion still impedes science.

Every now and again, I notice certain quagmires science still seems to be stuck in, because of having the need to maintain religious neutrality by treading lightly on certain topics. I can think of a few examples off hand, but I am sure there are others.

1) - Archaeology - Most of the hypotheses about older civilizations still center on the 6,500 year old Earth according to the Bible. While geologists and paleontologists are allowed to put the start of the world back in millions of years, the origin of civilization is still anchored more or less on 4500 BC. Except in a few cases where the evidence is overwhelming (such as Gobekli Tepli) Going any further back than that invites controversy, and lots of it

2) - Population policy. Science has established that planet Earth will be around for at least another billion years, so there's really no need to be in a hurry to create all the babies we can right now, since a virtually unlimited number would eventually occupy Earth one after another by dying and having kids of their own. But how much comfort is that to someone who belongs to an end-of-days religion? They think Jesus Christ is going to come any minute and end it all (and their predecessors have been thinking this for nearly 2000 years.)

3) - Stem Cell Research: stymied by the superstitious belief that a pre-embryo consisting of just a handful of cells, not developed even to the point of having a central nervous system, let alone a brain capable of processing human thoughts/emotion, may still have a "soul" or "spirit" of some kind hovering around it somewhere, which would become upset if we were to conduct experiments on its unfeeling tissue.

1. Archeology. This is a ridiculous assertion. Who is being impeded, and what do you think should be happening.
2. Population policy. This is not a branch of science.
3. Stem cell research. There is no research of any significance being impeded. Furthermore, this is not specifically a religious issue, it is a moral issue. Atheists also have morals.

You forgot cloning.

Originally Posted by kojax

1) - Archaeology - Most of the hypotheses about older civilizations still center on the 6,500 year old Earth according to the Bible. While geologists and paleontologists are allowed to put the start of the world back in millions of years, the origin of civilization is still anchored more or less on 4500 BC. Except in a few cases where the evidence is overwhelming (such as Gobekli Tepli) Going any further back than that invites controversy, and lots of it

Absolute rubbish. Please provide citations to justify this bizarre assertion.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Atheists also have morals.

I am keeping that one, that's a quality line right there.

I think all Kojax is saying is that for a long time religion has been intrusive, acting both as a hindrance and disturbance that adversely affects research, discovery and truth. For instance, if a religious leader like the Pope can negatively influence the wearing of condoms then he can effectively destroy years of beneficial scientific study. If Galileo was alive I'd ask his opinion.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I think all Kojax is saying is that for a long time religion has been intrusive, acting both as a hindrance and disturbance that adversely affects research, discovery and truth. For instance, if a religious leader like the Pope can negatively influence the wearing of condoms then he can effectively destroy years of beneficial scientific study. If Galileo was alive I'd ask his opinion.

Your argument is a good one, but Kojax's argument focused on other examples, one of which was blatantly wrong.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I think all Kojax is saying is that for a long time religion has been intrusive, acting both as a hindrance and disturbance that adversely affects research, discovery and truth. For instance, if a religious leader like the Pope can negatively influence the wearing of condoms then he can effectively destroy years of beneficial scientific study. If Galileo was alive I'd ask his opinion.

Okay, I'll bite. How does not wearing condoms adversely affect science?

I don't think religion has much if any effect on modern science other than discouraging young people from learning about science because they are already indoctrinated into superstitious teachings before they can reason or denied opportunities such as political pressure not to show evolution films in the American "bible belt."

Fortunately, in my case, science is impeding religion.

Somehow I think evolutionary genetics will continue on, although severely hampered by the loss of those home-schoolers in the Bible belt who may have otherwise gone into the field. However those same home schoolers may well have contributed more to science than the average product of the public schools.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Okay, I'll bite. How does not wearing condoms adversely affect science?

From a little known scientific journal:

Scientists theorized that the wearing of condoms during sexual intercourse would prevent unwanted pregnancies and STD's among human populations. With that in mind, tiny little condoms were specially designed and outfitted for trial using lab rats at Sweden's famous YumboYet University. Scientists were able to observe a marked reduction in not only Muridae pregnancy rates but also a severe drop in the occurrences of the deadly sexually transmitted Mouse Trappis disease. The next step was to prove their theory correct.

Scientists researched the globe until they found a third world country perfect for what they needed. With the careful use of press releases and billboard advertising in cooperation with the federal government of Botsomalawi, scientists were able to inform the national populace of the potential benefits of condom use. However, just as the program was about to commence, the Catholic religion's main spokesman and leader Pope Benedict, reminded the citizens that wearing the condom was an abomination against God and that Hell awaited any who went against his edict.

When the citizenry, 99% of whom are of the Catholic faith, heeded their religious leader's warning it basically killed the experiment in its tracks. The government who had secretly funded the project refused to continue to finance further research. Scientists were only left to ponder what may have been. Team leader Professor Harry Numbersafterhisname maintained that this setback was just a temporary roadblock and will not deter his crack group of scholars from achieving the results that will prove the theory correct.

zin
you one funny dude dad

Its interesting that you mentioned the concept of time. There is really no reason for science to rush to rid itself of religious influence. Our limited concept of science demands that we understand things quickly but true scientific inquiry requires years of checks and balances to ensure accuracy. The advances that we have made thus far will only improve over time and religion will gradually allow science to permeate. Each generation becomes more lax than the next and each generation of scientists improves on already made theories that the previous generation thought perfect. Perhaps there is no reason to rush the process. Once what we do know becomes better understood, we can begin to study others as they come.

Having said that, I don't think the religion vs science debate is really as influential as the media makes it out to be. I'm more perturbed by the lack of funds available to fund science or the lack of education around the world keeping potential geniuses from providing fresh insight into scientific enterprise or that people only stick to religion because learning science is so much more complex. Colleges and universities everywhere are making great discoveries and free inquiry abounds to a much greater degree than the media makes it out to be. For archaeology, no religious organization is preventing its occurance. They may disagree on timing but any published results is ultimately from a scientific perspective. As for population control, I highly doubt religion is the only thing spurring reproduction. Stem cell research is a hot topic but thanks to it being considered off limits, we have had plenty of time to study it in greater detail rather than just jumping into it. Also, I almost guarantee that thousands of scientists have already done research on it in private labs and are just waiting for its legalization to profit off of it somehow

Its interesting that you mentioned the concept of time. There is really no reason for science to rush to rid itself of religious influence. Our limited concept of science demands that we understand things quickly but true scientific inquiry requires years of checks and balances to ensure accuracy. The advances that we have made thus far will only improve over time and religion will gradually allow science to permeate. Each generation becomes more lax than the next and each generation of scientists improves on already made theories that the previous generation thought perfect. Perhaps there is no reason to rush the process. Once what we do know becomes better understood, we can begin to study others as they come.

Having said that, I don't think the religion vs science debate is really as influential as the media makes it out to be

The media isn't making this up. While it is true that science continues to make remarkable process, there are many indicators that the public is turning against science in the US in polls that show support for science if flat among liberals and sharply down for many conservatives (which are typically religious); public opinion that effects funding for more science and science education.
"This study explores time trends in public trust in science in the United States from 1974 to 2010. More precisely, I test Mooney’s (2005) claim that conservatives in the United States have become increasingly distrustful of science. Using data from the 1974 to 2010 General Social Survey, I examine group differences in trust in science and group-specific change in these attitudes over time. Results show that group differences in trust in science are largely stable over the period, except for respondents identifying as conservative. Conservatives began the period with the highest trust in science, relative to liberals and moderates, and ended the period with the lowest. The patterns for science are also unique when compared to public trust in other secular institutions. Results show enduring differences in trust in science by social class, ethnicity, gender, church attendance, and region. I explore the implications of these findings, specifically, the potential for political divisions to emerge over the cultural authority of science and the social role of experts in the formation of public policy."
Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere

There are lots of reasons for concern.

Are you relating this to religion somehow? Why, our own President is a devout Christian who prays each and every day. Chad will tell you that.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Are you relating this to religion somehow? Why, our own President is a devout Christian who prays each and every day. Chad will tell you that.

Are you suggesting the president's religious views aren't also liberal in the spectrum of religiosity, especially as compared to GW who didn't' think atheist were Americans, the Ten Commandment should be displaced in Texas court houses and theory of evolution is bogus? There is, of course, a spectrum of religious views-- most that rail against science are held by the conservative religious right. I'm old enough to remember when conservative intellectuals were far more influential in the republican party and as the article mentioned held up science with the utmost respect.

From what I have seen Religion most certainly can effect scientific advances. From the example of Galileo being jailed by the church to modern times when the advances that should be made in cloning have been stone-walled in part due to the responses from the various religious communities. While I am a christian I believe that if God did not want us to explore and question he would not have given us the mental capacity to do so.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Are you relating this to religion somehow? Why, our own President is a devout Christian who prays each and every day. Chad will tell you that.

Are you suggesting the president's religious views aren't also liberal in the spectrum of religiosity, especially as compared to GW who didn't' think atheist were Americans, the Ten Commandment should be displaced in Texas court houses and theory of evolution is bogus? There is, of course, a spectrum of religious views-- most that rail against science are held by the conservative religious right. I'm old enough to remember when conservative intellectuals were far more influential in the republican party and as the article mentioned held up science with the utmost respect.

I am suggesting that you are finding a cause where only a correlation may exist. Republicans are probably more likely to be found wearing cowboy boots than are Democrats. Does this mean cowboy boots impede science?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by kojax

1) - Archaeology - Most of the hypotheses about older civilizations still center on the 6,500 year old Earth according to the Bible. While geologists and paleontologists are allowed to put the start of the world back in millions of years, the origin of civilization is still anchored more or less on 4500 BC. Except in a few cases where the evidence is overwhelming (such as Gobekli Tepli) Going any further back than that invites controversy, and lots of it

Absolute rubbish. Please provide citations to justify this bizarre assertion.

Is this a serious forum? The ones who impedes science are the creationists; the fundamentalists o' the intelligent design.
But, our best approachs to understand the origin o' our weird & bewildering world are 'the constructions' as the evolutionary biology, the big bang, they are no fine tuned reflections o' reality, but are the best we can do, c'mon, we are beggars

Originally Posted by dmwyant

From what I have seen Religion most certainly can effect scientific advances. From the example of Galileo being jailed by the church to modern times when the advances that should be made in cloning have been stone-walled in part due to the responses from the various religious communities. While I am a christian I believe that if God did not want us to explore and question he would not have given us the mental capacity to do so.

This was ridiculous. Is an embryo a human being? Is abortion o' embryos a murder? .... absolutely ridiculous!, We, -the inhumanoids- are the owners, the architekts o' our own monstrosities.
After eons of phylosophy we cant know if an embryo is property of God or property of inhumanoids?

Firstable, be responsible, but if a hole in the preservative, or any fail in calendar calculations occur.... girl,... kill your embryo, you are the architekt o' your life.

could these embryo be a potential S. W. Hawking? This is an interesting question you must try to answer. Probabilistically.
What if a depressed mother of Charlie Chaplin would have decided to abort this genius?
In the biography of Beethoven, we can read, his mother completely disappointed 'cause the sucesive birth of retarded children, decided to abort L.V. Beethoven, fortunately she changed opinion.

do something witchy!!

What if a depressed mother of Charlie Chaplin would have decided to abort this genius?

What if Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer and Dick Cheney's moms had aborted them--think of all the misery which would have been saved.

Your argument is hollow and you are on the thin line of preaching.

You are confusing the deficiences of police investigators and criminologists, with the probable assassination of unrepeatable Genius. Whose techniques were well ahead of its time.
There is another Beethoven in 19th, 20th century? Will be another Charlie Chaplin in 21th century? How much $ a businessman could pay for the autorship of their works?

Will there be another Hitler, Dalmer, Stalin? Its not a viable line of argument.

bezoar,
I fail to see what this has to do with the core question regarding religion resulting in scientific impedement. What does abortion have to do with the Catholic church's stance regarding human cloning? I find your series of arguments irrational however I concede that may be due to difficulty understanding your writing at times as english, I assume, is a second language to you. Could you please explain what it was in my statement regarding well documented stances taken by the Catholic church among others that you find ridiculous?

Originally Posted by dmwyant

From what I have seen Religion most certainly can effect scientific advances. From the example of Galileo being jailed by the church

The thread topic is "... still impedes.." Besides, it is not clear that the jailing of Galileo actually impeded anything, or if this single incident did impede science, that the overall effect of religion, as to its impact on social organization, economics, etc., had the effect of impeding science. The social sciences just do not have a sufficiently complete model to make such a statement.

to modern times when the advances that should be made in cloning have been stone-walled in part due to the responses from the various religious communities. While I am a christian I believe that if God did not want us to explore and question he would not have given us the mental capacity to do so.

There aren't any bans that I know of on animal cloning, although the Humane Society of the United States (not a religious organization) has come out against it. I don't know why all ethical issues are tagged as religious issues. Do you think that without religion, no one would oppose human cloning? Is there anything in any religious texts that oppose cloning? What great advancements in science do you expect if human cloning were permitted?

Cloning and Catholic Ethics

Here's the thing, dmwyant. Yes, Catholics think that they get their moral beliefs against cloning from their religion. They also think their religion includes things like prohibitions agains murder, theft and so forth. Many think that the decline of religion will lead to a breakdown in morality. Atheists say this is ridiculous, and that atheists are just as moral as theists. This implies that moral beliefs come from some other source than religion.

What you seem to want to do is give no credit to religion for the moral principles you do agree with, but assign all blame for the ones you do not agree with.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

... but assign all blame for the ones you do not agree with.

It is not that hard to connect though. Who's behind the anti-scientific intelligent design movement for example, as in paying the legal fees for example--you almost always find it's conservative christian groups such as the Discover Institute, or thinly masked front groups.

On cloning specifically, while I'm not sure about legal cases, again the bully pulpet is certainly used to influence Christians.

Now obviously there are probably some strong secular arguments against human cloning--such as mine, that many of the cloned animals have serious health issues--but that's very different from non-scientific concern about immortal souls, creation, "playing god" and other flimsily non-scientific excuses. Perhaps that's your objection to dmwyant's arguments--that's it's not a cut and dry as saying religion is against science?

Religious Opposition to Cloning

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Harold14370

... but assign all blame for the ones you do not agree with.

It is not that hard to connect though. Who's behind the anti-scientific intelligent design movement for example, as in paying the legal fees for example--you almost always find it's conservative christian groups such as the Discover Institute, or thinly masked front groups.

On cloning specifically, while I'm not sure about legal cases, again the bully pulpet is certainly used to influence Christians.

Now obviously there are probably some strong secular arguments against human cloning--such as mine, that many of the cloned animals have serious health issues--but that's very different from non-scientific concern about immortal souls, creation, "playing god" and other flimsily non-scientific excuses. Perhaps that's your objection to dmwyant's arguments--that's it's not a cut and dry as saying religion is against science?

Religious Opposition to Cloning

You keep harping on intelligent design, which only deals with a tiny branch of science, and has had very little success keeping evolution out of the public schools. Remember the topic is "impedes science" not seeks to impede.

There is nothing about science that says anything about cruelty to animals. You are confusing your own personal beliefs with science. Just because you are an atheist, it does not make all your beliefs scientific or science based.

Yet evolution, the very center of biology, isn't even taught in far too many schools--or taught poorly. The ID movement, and general anti-evolutionary beliefs bring controversy that many science teachers are unwilling to buck.

US Teachers Don't Teach Evolution | Mother Jones

If you want to know why US students continue to lag other nations; if you want to know why US grad science schools are desperate for qualified US students and end up filling their classrooms with foriegn students than it really isn't necessary to look too much further than the religious conservative movement that's obstructing the teaching, interfering with programing and monopolized nearly the entire GOP (sad to say since we might be fading minority of the same).

That's some real hyperbole. I suppose you will find some reason to blame the problems in math education, physics, engineering, etc. on creationists.

From tomorrow's issue of Science, a new paper describing the great divide between creationism's court losses (every major US federal court case in the past 40 years) and a paradoxical decline in classroom teaching of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself.

Oh my god. The creationist are preventing the teaching of reason itself!!!!!

Originally Posted by dmwyant

bezoar,
I fail to see what this has to do with the core question regarding religion resulting in scientific impedement. What does abortion have to do with the Catholic church's stance regarding human cloning? I find your series of arguments irrational however I concede that may be due to difficulty understanding your writing at times as english, I assume, is a second language to you. Could you please explain what it was in my statement regarding well documented stances taken by the Catholic church among others that you find ridiculous?

You repeat the old arguments, Galileo, cloning have been stone-walled by religious communities, etc. Im tired to hear old unsolved problems.
Abortion shares the same controversy of Cloning; the manipulation/destruction of the embryo.

Embryo is the theologycal core of the cloning controversy.
Im a feminist man , abortion is a women's right.

Regarding abortion, and other methods that destroy embryos, i always had in my mind the question on the probable assasination of genius [does today's bioengineers are close to produce genius in labs? i suspect the genius are unique, irrepeateable; think in Andy Warhol, A. Hitchcook, I. Kant, Maxwell, Planck, Godel,...]; but nobody answered me based on bioengineery, genomics, mathemathical probabilities...

Originally Posted by bezoar

.... abortion is a women's right....

not just women, but everyone should have the right to murder their own offspring
whether by abortion, or by grabbing the baby by the ankles and dashing it's little brains out against a brick wall.

Jesse ventura's filter= "how does this effect me?"

luck of the draw---one of the murdered may have been the one to formulate the TOE(theory of everything)
and we lost him/her
we (may have) lost the guy who could've balanced the budget
we (may have) lost the guy who could put an end to all wars
and we may have lost the mass murderor who could start the last of all wars, and ended this evolutionary experiment

Originally Posted by bezoar

Originally Posted by dmwyant

bezoar,
I fail to see what this has to do with the core question regarding religion resulting in scientific impedement. What does abortion have to do with the Catholic church's stance regarding human cloning? I find your series of arguments irrational however I concede that may be due to difficulty understanding your writing at times as english, I assume, is a second language to you. Could you please explain what it was in my statement regarding well documented stances taken by the Catholic church among others that you find ridiculous?

You repeat the old arguments, Galileo, cloning have been stone-walled by religious communities, etc. Im tired to hear old unsolved problems.
Abortion shares the same controversy of Cloning; the manipulation/destruction of the embryo.

Embryo is the theologycal core of the cloning controversy.
Im a feminist man , abortion is a women's right.

Regarding abortion, and other methods that destroy embryos, i always had in my mind the question on the probable assasination of genius [does today's bioengineers are close to produce genius in labs? i suspect the genius are unique, irrepeateable; think in Andy Warhol, A. Hitchcook, I. Kant, Maxwell, Planck, Godel,...]; but nobody answered me based on bioengineery, genomics, mathemathical probabilities...

I will repeate for the third time, that argument is not valid, as the nex baby could well be the next Stalin, Hitler or Ridgeway. There is NO way to know what they will become so arguing that they MAY be a genius is not viable.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by bezoar

.... abortion is a women's right....

not just women, but everyone should have the right to murder their own offspring
whether by abortion, or by grabbing the baby by the ankles and dashing it's little brains out against a brick wall.

Jesse ventura's filter= "how does this effect me?"

luck of the draw---one of the murdered may have been the one to formulate the TOE(theory of everything)
and we lost him/her
we (may have) lost the guy who could've balanced the budget
we (may have) lost the guy who could put an end to all wars
and we may have lost the mass murderor who could start the last of all wars, and ended this evolutionary experiment

At what point do you determine that it is murder? Many eggs get fertilized and do not implant, or do implant but fail to mature and are washed out.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

I will repeate for the third time, that argument is not valid, as the nex baby could well be the next Stalin, Hitler or Ridgeway. There is NO way to know what they will become so arguing that they MAY be a genius is not viable.

United Nations Oraganization,.. etc we have now better tools to avoid such monstrosities

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

... At what point do you determine that it is murder? .. .

at the point where someone decides to end someone else's life
but then again
i really do believe that that is entirely the decision of the person making the decision and said person has a right to that decision
If someone wants to murder all their existing offspring and abort any future ones------why should I really care?
.............
alternate example
if i am on a submarine with another fellow and we know that we will be rescued in 12 hours, but there is only enough air for 6 hours with both of us breathing
should we both die?
alternate example
if i know that you will murder other people if i leave you alone, should i leave you alone?
alternate
let us assume that our countries are at war, and that i am a soldier ordered to destroy your entire village, killing every last man, woman, and child...

exigent circumstances
when is murder wrong?
when is it less wrong?
when is it the best action?

with an unborn child, none of the above can be definitively stated

personally, i eschew murder, but that doesn't mean i have the right to make your decisions for you

At what point does a blastocyst or fetus become a person?

you are arguing as if we are talking third trimester abortions, which I am not, so comparisons to the killing of villages etc are invalid and rather incendiary.

Originally Posted by bezoar

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

I will repeate for the third time, that argument is not valid, as the nex baby could well be the next Stalin, Hitler or Ridgeway. There is NO way to know what they will become so arguing that they MAY be a genius is not viable.

United Nations Oraganization,.. etc we have now better tools to avoid such monstrosities

That does not change the fact that your argument is not valid

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

At what point does a blastocyst or fetus become a person?

you are arguing as if we are talking third trimester abortions, which I am not, so comparisons to the killing of villages etc are invalid and rather incendiary.

at conception
a unique combination of the genome has happened

incendiary? calling abortion murder? ok it's just the way i feel
and i also feel that that is the right of the erstwhile parent(s)

would you feel more sanguine if i called it "fred"
... " a rose by any other name..."

So all the eggs that get fertilized and do not implant or implant but do not mature or being murdered then?

unique combinations of a genome do not make a blastocyst or fetus a person.

back to the previous
murder is the product of a decision
not a failure to implant --

--some ancient religions considered masturbation a sin because it could not lead to reproduction

my viewpoints are mine and as i would not choose to decide for others, mine alone
and not to be construed as a moral, legal, nor ethical decision for other people

Do the swabs taken by a doctor count as a person if some of the cells have mutations while they are being cultured? Those cells are a "unique combination of the genome"

Originally Posted by bezoar

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

I will repeate for the third time, that argument is not valid, as the nex baby could well be the next Stalin, Hitler or Ridgeway. There is NO way to know what they will become so arguing that they MAY be a genius is not viable.

United Nations Oraganization,.. etc we have now better tools to avoid such monstrosities

That would explain Pol Pot and the Rwanda massacres and Mao Tse tung and the Congo and East Timor and.......

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by bezoar

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

I will repeate for the third time, that argument is not valid, as the nex baby could well be the next Stalin, Hitler or Ridgeway. There is NO way to know what they will become so arguing that they MAY be a genius is not viable.

United Nations Oraganization,.. etc we have now better tools to avoid such monstrosities

That would explain Pol Pot and the Rwanda massacres and Mao Tse tung and the Congo and East Timor and.......

I hope inefficient United Nations & corrupted World Bank don't will allow another Holocaust. However i suspect Pol Pot, Mao Tse, Hitler were puppets of occult economical interests, rather than evil genius, genetic masterminds of machiavelism, etc
Nobody presented a proof that any Hitler's ancestors wasnt Jewish. How a dark-haired leader could represent 'the aryan archetype'? What was the Hitler's height?

When i think in men genetically prone to evil, come to my mind The Unabomber, Jane Topes, Zodiak, etc...

In the other hand, my life would have been really boring, if they never been born: Alfred Hitchcook, Kurt Godell, Max Planck, Inmanuelle Kant, Francisco de Goya, ....
Responsible Abortion is a need, im not saying embryos are property of god; im asking you if a technique, as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (called also embryo screening), can increase the incidence of genius birthing, or focuse in any sort of incipient artificial production of genius.

Screening for what exactly?

(and are you saying jewish people are evil? o.O)

I found this rather unscientific, but maybe vaguely accurate, "graph" that is also vaguely on topic:

Originally Posted by pyoko

I found this rather unscientific, but maybe vaguely accurate, "graph" that is also vaguely on topic:

How is scientific advancement being measured? I thought the "dark ages" were the the golden age of Islamic science. Why are the dark ages the "Christian Dark Ages"? Are Christians the only ones capable of scientific advancement?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I thought the "dark ages" were the the golden age of Islamic science. Why are the dark ages the "Christian Dark Ages"? Are Christians the only ones capable of scientific advancement?

In English language fora, dominated by westerners, religion and Christianity are often erroneously conflated. Which is of course your point. I think.

Harold:

How is scientific advancement being measured?

That's why I stated it was a non scientific "graph" that's not really a graph and that it might be vaguely right. This "graph" is more a meme making a point that religion halts scientific advancement.

I thought the "dark ages" were the the golden age of Islamic science.

So they were. Maybe you should make a more accurate version.

Why are the dark ages the "Christian Dark Ages"? Are Christians the only ones capable of scientific advancement?

No, this says that it was an age of halting advancement, not being capable of scientific advancement, which is true.

If you try to scientifically take apart an Internet meme, it will get you a ton of moot questions

Originally Posted by pyoko

That's why I stated it was a non scientific "graph" that's not really a graph and that it might be vaguely right. This "graph" is more a meme making a point that religion halts scientific advancement.

Yes. I think it's a little bit ironic that a non-scientific graph is used to make a point about non-scientific attitudes.

Originally Posted by John Galt

In English language fora, dominated by westerners, religion and Christianity are often erroneously conflated. Which is of course your point. I think.

That and the fact that the Greeks and Romans are portrayed as being science friendly, in spite of their pagan religions, and no mention is made of all the other places like India, China, Japan, etc. where nothing much was happening in the way of science in the Middle Ages. Yet it is labeled the "Christian" dark ages. Somebody obviously had an agenda when they made that chart.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Screening for what exactly?

i was referring to preimplantation dx. Can artificial insemination increase the incidence of genius?

(and are you saying jewish people are evil? o.O)

No. why you think i could say something like that?

That important figures were all jewish? Was Darwin jewish too?

No it can not that I am aware of.

Darwin was Catholic, (though he became less religious as he aged and studied)

You were not clear as to what you were saying, hence me asking what you meant.

Originally Posted by bezoar

could these embryo be a potential S. W. Hawking? This is an interesting question you must try to answer. Probabilistically.
What if a depressed mother of Charlie Chaplin would have decided to abort this genius?
In the biography of Beethoven, we can read, his mother completely disappointed 'cause the sucesive birth of retarded children, decided to abort L.V. Beethoven, fortunately she changed opinion.

do something witchy!!

There's more or less an equal probability that any given embryo will be the next Hitler or Pol Pot.

Honestly, the only valid assumption we can make is that, if we expand the population, the current demographic will be reflected in the expanded group. However, you should ask yourself how much a person like Hawking would have achieved if he were born into grinding poverty, because that is the condition that will face the overwhelming majority of newborn children if the population continues to expand.

How about, instead of focusing on making sure every possible Hawking gets born, let's focus on making sure those few Hawkings who are born have access to education and basic necessities so they don't live out their lives as farm hands making a bare subsistence wage (or less) on a plantation somewhere?

I don't know about points 1 and 2 but the third one is valid...different forms of christianity are against stem cell research-but the extent of how this effects the research depends alot on what country your in, same as the other points people mentioned
But that said I think that the limitation/stoppage of certain things(abortions, scientific teaching in schools, no contraception etc)that certain religions are against can only be bad in the long run...Social limitations like those aren't going to help the developing minds of young people-that definately will affect science in the future

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

No it can not that I am aware of.

Darwin was Catholic, (though he became less religious as he aged and studied)

You were not clear as to what you were saying, hence me asking what you meant.

There is a myth regard the intellectual superiority of Jews. How much could be true?
Eminent jews: Planck, Schonberg, Freud, Mahler, Marx, Einstein, Spinoza, Rothschilds, if Darwin & Newton were; the list is complete, ... just kidding.

Can you mention non-jewish intellectuals of that level?

Have the conspirative theories as Sionic Conspiracy any basis? Or was merely nazi propaganda? How can survive if everybody knows that myths?

Originally Posted by Supervixen

I don't know about points 1 and 2 but the third one is valid...different forms of christianity are against stem cell research-but the extent of how this effects the research depends alot on what country your in, same as the other points people mentioned

This is not quite accurate. Certain people, some of whom are Christians, oppose the use of embryonic stem cells for research, not all stem cells. Some other people also oppose various other kinds of medical research on ethical grounds. Often, there is no particular religious association with these ethical considerations. I am referring to things like performing experiments without informed consent, causing undue suffering to animals, etc. Any of these could "impair" medical research. Are you opposed to these as well?

But that said I think that the limitation/stoppage of certain things(abortions, scientific teaching in schools, no contraception etc)that certain religions are against can only be bad in the long run...Social limitations like those aren't going to help the developing minds of young people-that definately will affect science in the future

In what way would the limitation or stoppage of abortion or contraception impair developing minds or affect science in the future?

"This is not quite accurate. Certain people, some of whom are Christians, oppose the use of embryonic stem cells for research, not all stem cells."
Is this thread called- "People who appose scientific study"? NO it's called "RELIGION still impedes science"..

"In what way would the limitation or stoppage of abortion or contraception impair developing minds or affect science in the future?"
Because a better society can't excist without social freedom-by that I mean people having the right to control their own bodies and reproductive freedom. And i think society will always affect science

oh and this- "This is not quite accurate."
It was accurate actually, just because you disagree doesn't make it wrong- explain to me what "isn't quite accurate" about me saying that some forms of christianity are against SCR and that it depends on the country? my sentence was far too non-specific to be considered wrong!

Originally Posted by Supervixen

"This is not quite accurate. Certain people, some of whom are Christians, oppose the use of embryonic stem cells for research, not all stem cells."
Is this thread called- "People who appose scientific study"? NO it's called "RELIGION still impedes science"..

Why do you attribute the opposition to embryonic stem cell research to Christian RELIGION, if the Christian Bible does not have anything in it about stem cell research, and if other ethical standards exist inhibiting some forms of medical research, which have nothing to do with religion?

"In what way would the limitation or stoppage of abortion or contraception impair developing minds or affect science in the future?"
Because a better society can't excist without social freedom-by that I mean people having the right to control their own bodies and reproductive freedom. And i think society will always affect science

That's not a reason.

oh and this- "This is not quite accurate."
It was accurate actually, just because you disagree doesn't make it wrong- explain to me what "isn't quite accurate" about me saying that some forms of christianity are against SCR and that it depends on the country? my sentence was far too non-specific to be considered wrong!

There are no religious or other groups I know of that oppose adult stem cell research. Therefore it is inaccurate to say that some or any form of Christianity are "against stem cell research."

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Supervixen

"This is not quite accurate. Certain people, some of whom are Christians, oppose the use of embryonic stem cells for research, not all stem cells."
Is this thread called- "People who appose scientific study"? NO it's called "RELIGION still impedes science"..

Why do you attribute the opposition to embryonic stem cell research to Christian RELIGION, if the Christian Bible does not have anything in it about stem cell research, and if other ethical standards exist inhibiting some forms of medical research, which have nothing to do with religion?

"In what way would the limitation or stoppage of abortion or contraception impair developing minds or affect science in the future?"
Because a better society can't excist without social freedom-by that I mean people having the right to control their own bodies and reproductive freedom. And i think society will always affect science

That's not a reason.

oh and this- "This is not quite accurate."
It was accurate actually, just because you disagree doesn't make it wrong- explain to me what "isn't quite accurate" about me saying that some forms of christianity are against SCR and that it depends on the country? my sentence was far too non-specific to be considered wrong!

There are no religious or other groups I know of that oppose adult stem cell research. Therefore it is inaccurate to say that some or any form of Christianity are "against stem cell research."

did i say anything about the christian bible? No why? because i didn't even say anything about the christian faith in particular, i said FORMS of christianity-as in Cathlic, Protestant, etc...and did I say it was all religions fault? no i said that some forms of christianity are against SCR-because it's true!
You want to know why they're apposed to something that's not in their bible? ME TOO! if you ever find out, feel free to tell me.

and you don't know of any religious groups who oppose the destruction of "embryos" for SCR-yet you DO know they oppose the distruction of "embryos" for abortion-it's the same thing!
churches that are opposed:
Catholic (Orthodox & Roman) church
Lutheran church
National Association of Evangelicals
Southern babtist Convention
and certain branches of Protestant

churces that are against in certain circamstances:
United Methodist Church
Episcopal Church
United Church of Christ

happy now? Why do you feel the need to jump down the throat of everyone who says anything about christianity?

And BTW how come you never mentioned the fact that I also said "lack of scientific teaching in school"? that OBVIOUSLY effects science

Originally Posted by Supervixen

Why do you feel the need to jump down the throat of everyone who says anything about christianity?

There has been a history on this forum of a strong anti-religious streak, often supported, or promoted by the mod/admin team. The conversion of the religion section to The Scientific Study of Religion section by a former Admin was a classic example of that. Even today we often see dogmatic, knee jerk anti-religion posts by members who ought to know better. In this environment Harold has often taken the role of protector for religion and may, as a consequence, sometimes seem overly protective.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Supervixen

Why do you feel the need to jump down the throat of everyone who says anything about christianity?

There has been a history on this forum of a strong anti-religious streak, often supported, or promoted by the mod/admin team. The conversion of the religion section to The Scientific Study of Religion section by a former Admin was a classic example of that. Even today we often see dogmatic, knee jerk anti-religion posts by members who ought to know better. In this environment Harold has often taken the role of protector for religion and may, as a consequence, sometimes seem overly protective.

If religion is being attacked- then by all means defend it, but I'm just naming some facts as well as my personal opinions...he's not from my country therefor he doesn't know how things can differ over here...And shouldn't all religions be defended equally then-not just christianity?

I am not defending (or attacking) Harold's approach. I was seeking to provide some background information that may be pertinent to his exchanges with you. Your points make sense within the context of the thread, but perhaps HArold's have viability within the larger context of the forum. I'll let Harold address it from here on in. He may wish to completely disagree with my interpretation of his motives.

Originally Posted by bezoar

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

No it can not that I am aware of.

Darwin was Catholic, (though he became less religious as he aged and studied)

You were not clear as to what you were saying, hence me asking what you meant.

There is a myth regard the intellectual superiority of Jews. How much could be true?
Eminent jews: Planck, Schonberg, Freud, Mahler, Marx, Einstein, Spinoza, Rothschilds, if Darwin & Newton were; the list is complete, ... just kidding.

Can you mention non-jewish intellectuals of that level?

Have the conspirative theories as Sionic Conspiracy any basis? Or was merely nazi propaganda? How can survive if everybody knows that myths?

Darwin and Hawking

Does christianity impeed SCR in Ireland?

Originally Posted by sculptor

Does christianity impeed SCR in Ireland?

SCR using a human embryo is illegal...so are abortions. Religion is compulsary all through school but science is elective(and only after age 12/13). Evolution is not part of the curriculum at any age(unless you choose it in college) the only exceptions to all this are the few "agnostic" schools we have...but a lot of those are private schools

Oh and up until age 12 the only religion they teach is Catholicism...even after that it's only a small section of world religion...the only reason schools are even becoming a bit less rigid is because so many non-Catholics from other countries have to go to there
92% of primary schools here are Roman Catholic

wowie zowie, whodathunkit
Somehow, i had a different conception of the emerald isle

Originally Posted by sculptor

wowie zowie, whodathunkit
Somehow, i had a different conception of the emerald isle

Are you being serious-or joking I can't tell?

BTW I'm speaking about the republic of Ireland (the north is under british rule and is mainly Protestant)

Oh and lets not forget homosexuality was illegal here til the early 90's, so was the contraceptive pill...And the last of those "work houses" for un-wed mothers weren't closed til 1996

joking/serious?
sorry somedays, i can't tell either
\oops sorry
back to religion impeeding science
I hear a lot of noise about it here in the usa, and see politicians pandering to anyone who will listen, but don't see a lot of serious and successful interference with science by the various (nut-job) religious loonies.

Originally Posted by Supervixen

did i say anything about the christian bible? No why? because i didn't even say anything about the christian faith in particular, i said FORMS of christianity-as in Cathlic, Protestant, etc...and did I say it was all religions fault? no i said that some forms of christianity are against SCR-because it's true!

Do you understand that there are adult stem cells used for research? Then do you understand why it is not accurate to say that someone "opposes stem cell research," if they do not oppose adult stem cell research?

You want to know why they're apposed to something that's not in their bible? ME TOO! if you ever find out, feel free to tell me.

Maybe because they have ethical concerns about it, just as anybody can have ethical concerns about anything.

and you don't know of any religious groups who oppose the destruction of "embryos" for SCR-yet you DO know they oppose the distruction of "embryos" for abortion-it's the same thing!

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

1. I am aware of adult SCR, I was talking about the kind that uses embryos, and I assumed you were aswell, I didn't realise you said that in the last post2."maybe because they have ethical concerns..." uh why did you ask me a question just to then answer it yourself?3.you said that you knew of no religious groups who oppose SCR, but I know you are aware of ones who oppose abortion, they oppose the two for the same reason- destruction of embryos...so my point was that if you're aware they oppose one, you must know they oppose the other.However you said you were talking about adult SCR so it doesn't matter...4. You still didn't address my main point for religion impeding science- evolution not taught in schools?

Originally Posted by Supervixen

Oh and lets not forget homosexuality was illegal here til the early 90's, so was the contraceptive pill...And the last of those "work houses" for un-wed mothers weren't closed til 1996

On the plus side you have Gay Byrne, exported River Dance and have won the Eurovision song contest seven times.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Supervixen

Oh and lets not forget homosexuality was illegal here til the early 90's, so was the contraceptive pill...And the last of those "work houses" for un-wed mothers weren't closed til 1996

On the plus side you have Gay Byrne, exported River Dance and have won the Eurovision song contest seven times.

And Father Ted...what else do ya need?lol