did chuck colsen take it to far?

[generic_mike]

on his Biotech commentary?
http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?...mplate=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=18134
or is all Biotech evil?

 

[Grengor]

At the bottom of the page: "For Bible studies and Sunday school classes: “Playing God? Facing the Everyday Ethical Dilemmas of Biotechnology” small group curriculum."

 

[Praxiteles]

In Australian colloquial language, "chuck" is a synonym for "vomit". Not that it's relevant, but both amusing and appropos.

 

[generic_mike]

um it dosent do much for me if it isn't free

 

[generic_mike]

btw, I'll be 18 after Saint particks day

 

[ApocryphaNow]

Non-scientists enjoy wasting their breath with their commentary on science. Perhaps a few centuries ago we would have seen an article debating the ethics of a heliocentric solar system. As if any of this nonsense matters in the long run.

People do not seem to understand that science is not limited by whatever religious taboos one has. The philosophy of a lot of scientists (and I have to agree with this because it sure gets things done) is "if you can, do."

 

[Vainglorious]

on his Biotech commentary?
http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=18134
or is all Biotech evil?

While debate of the ethics of a new directions of science is healthy, Colson comes off sounding like a true neo-Luddite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-luddism

 

[Mocca]

What's wrong with killing embryos? The only valid reason that I've been given is that God says life begins at conception. Well, to those of you who argue from that standpoint: not everyone is Christian, and you shouldn't impose your moral values on people.

Edit: I think this thread is more applicable in the Ethics and Morality forums... but... whatever.

 

[ApocryphaNow]

While debate of the ethics of a new directions of science is healthy, Colson comes off sounding like a true neo-Luddite

While you may be right in arguing for debate in the ethics of science, past experience shows that science itself cares rather little for philosophical niceties. Research that is dropped due to ethical implications will all but certainly be picked up again by somebody else, leaving the scrupulous in the dust. It would be far better to prepare society for the discoveries of science than try to limit science to the transitory wishes of society.

Edit: I think this thread is more applicable in the Ethics and Morality forums... but... whatever.

Agreed.

 

[generic_mike]

if you can be God, do?

 

[ApocryphaNow]

if you can be God, do?

This is a bit of a loaded question given that the definition of "God" is hard to pin down.

 

[David Gould]

Hmmm. I think the general community has the right to set ethical standards for the scientific community. These ethical standards will change over time, as do our laws and as do practices in other areas. But the general community has the right to say (for example) 'we do not want experiments done on humans without their consent' or 'we do not want humans to be cloned'.

If for example scientists want to clone humans, let them convince the general community as to why they should be allowed to do so.

And the argument that 'it will just be done somewhere else' is a spurious one, as any nation knows that it cannot pass laws that apply to other nations, and yet they still do so. The question is whether we want X done here, where we do have control.

 

[generic_mike]

well what other goals of science are there? its kinda hard to be an ethical scientest if they think humans are going nowhere...

 

[ApocryphaNow]

Hmmm. I think the general community has the right to set ethical standards for the scientific community. These ethical standards will change over time, as do our laws and as do practices in other areas. But the general community has the right to say (for example) 'we do not want experiments done on humans without their consent' or 'we do not want humans to be cloned'.

If for example scientists want to clone humans, let them convince the general community as to why they should be allowed to do so.

And the argument that 'it will just be done somewhere else' is a spurious one, as any nation knows that it cannot pass laws that apply to other nations, and yet they still do so. The question is whether we want X done here, where we do have control.

Perhaps you are right. It is a matter of whether people want things done here for not. However, I'm not talking about the actual reserach practices per se, but rather the implications of those practices, particuarly the very real possiblity of genetic experimentation, modification, and cloning being conducted on humans.

All I'm saying is that things are going to get done. Talking about how some things in science give us the willies is not going to make science go away. In the end, the human lust for knowledge is what makes science so inexorable.

 

[David Gould]

I agree with you. However, scientists need to bring the rest of the community along with them. The Creation/Evolution debate is an indication of what a failure to do so might result in.

 

[ApocryphaNow]

I agree with you. However, scientists need to bring the rest of the community along with them. The Creation/Evolution debate is an indication of what a failure to do so might result in.

It is actually interesting that you bring that up. I was thinking of the crevo debate as exactly why it is a waste of time to get universal public approval. Too many die-hards don't care to listen to scientists. People who are actually interested in the fate of society will listen carefully and give their input, and people who think the world exists only to prove their theology right will stay in the dark ages.

 

[Nightson]

"There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." ~Robert Oppenheimer

Limits may be set on what scientists may do, but they should never be placed on what they can ask.

 

[ApocryphaNow]

"There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." ~Robert Oppenheimer

Limits may be set on what scientists may do, but they should never be placed on what they can ask.

beautiful

 

[David Gould]

It is actually interesting that you bring that up. I was thinking of the crevo debate as exactly why it is a waste of time to get universal public approval. Too many die-hards don't care to listen to scientists. People who are actually interested in the fate of society will listen carefully and give their input, and people who think the world exists only to prove their theology right will stay in the dark ages.

The crevo debate is a result, imo, of ignorance. Part of the reason for that ignorance is poor science communication. In other words, we can blame the listeners as much as we like, but communication is a two-way thing. Some of the responsibility for the current debate must be placed at the door of science educators.

 

[ApocryphaNow]

The crevo debate is a result, imo, of ignorance. Part of the reason for that ignorance is poor science communication. In other words, we can blame the listeners as much as we like, but communication is a two-way thing. Some of the responsibility for the current debate must be placed at the door of science educators.

I agree with this statement and I feel very similarly. I'm not in the negative camp of bashing the intelligence of all creationist. However, there are some that simply refuse to listen at all, and, honestly, I'm not sure it is worth the effort to get through to every one of them. I do my part to help out when I can, though. It bothers me when a seemingly curious person has been let down by the system.

I especially agree with what you say about science educators. It has been my long standing position that science educators need to start teaching critical thinking earlier and more stingently. This, much more than "fact" based learning, is what I feel leads to a successful ability to apply reasoning to new and diverse topics.