#2 - "Whole scientific disciplines"? Nice qualifier there.
#3 - Any significant number? I'll let the ratings for the 700 Club speak for me.
#4 - Your ethical problems DO NOT dictate what a scientist can do. This is an example of theocracy. If you don't like that research, don't engage in it.
#5 - It is a valid point. How in the world can you claim that Galileo has no relevance to today when you just brought up stem cell research? Woo!
Why do you object to morals? Many atheists on this forum like to brag about how much moral than believers they are. Well, what are they using for a standard then?
#4 - Your ethical problems DO NOT dictate what a scientist can do. This is an example of theocracy. If you don't like that research, don't engage in it.
Then don't expect us to pay for it either. If scientists want to butcher babies in the name of progress, they can do it on their own dime. Which, for that matter, should be how all scientific research should be done. The government should not be funding scientific research to begin with because there's too little in the way of safeguards to keep politics out of it. It should not be government subsidized elitist welfare.
When a majority of people in a democracy believe something should be done a certain way, that is how it gets done, and the fact that some of them got the idea from a holy book doesn't make it theocracy. Theocracy is government by a church or religion, not government by a population whose members tend to go to church.
BTW, are you aware that if we use your standard, any government that does or bans something that is also advocated or proscribed by a religion is a theocracy? For example, my holy book says I shall not murder, not bear false witness and be sure to pay my taxes. My government has outlawed murder, has prison terms for perjury and civil remedies for libel and also requires the payment of taxes. So, wouldn't that be three examples of the people demanding that the government and non-believers act according to our holy book?
"Whole scientific disciplines"? Nice qualifier there.
That's not my standard, it's Coyoteman's. I asked you the same question I asked him about it (to the letter) because you were advancing the same position as him, though admittedly without the raging paranoia. Here's his list of banned disciplines from the thread I referenced earlier:
Geology and archaeology--can't find evidence of the flood. GONE!Astronomy--that big bang stuff. GONE!
Genetics--all those genetic similarities to chimps. GONE!
Radiometric dating--can't get the ages right. GONE!
Biology--all that evilution stuff. GONE!
Paleontology--all those inconvenient fossils. GONE!
With the exception of radiometric dating, everything on that list is a very broad discipline, some of them (such as astronomy) so broad you couldn't get any broader. He says they'll be banned and that it's plain to see from the current positions of leaders in Christian circles. What say you?
Any significant number? I'll let the ratings for the 700 Club speak for me.
What scientific disciplines has the 700 club tried to eliminate? I don't watch, so I may have missed the "call your Congressman and ban metallurgy" campaign.
Your ethical problems DO NOT dictate what a scientist can do. This is an example of theocracy. If you don't like that research, don't engage in it.
Let's see if that holds up, shall we?
Scientist A wants to do research on pain response and recovery rates in humans by cutting parts of the body off his subjects that are relatively easy to heal, say, slicing the last half millimeter of each finger, lopping off a bit of ear. Since he's particularly interested in the response of children, he'll pay parents $5,000 to give permission to allow their child to undergo this without anesthesia.
Scientist B wants to research the endurance and pain tolerance of the two genders. He'll pass electrical current through prisoners of both sexes from a medium security lockup. The experiments are not voluntary, prisoners are chosen at random and are not allowed to decline.
Scientist C wants to do research measuring the pain response of fetuses by shocking them in the womb with electrical current, and amputating the occasional body part.
Scientist D has a theory about trauma effects on various body types. He plans to inflict identical injuries on a series of patients and allow them to bleed out until he estimates they have a 15% chance of recovery. He will then compare actual death rates to body types, gender and race.
Scientist E is studying sexuality in mammals (including humans) and is curious about bestiality. He feels that interviews with humans will not give him the information he needs, so he sets up a lab with various species available and lets a number of zoophiles have at them. Some of the animals may be seriously harmed and experience significant pain in the process, but he'll get some information out of it that will be crucial to his work.
All five of those guys should get to do their research, right? Because any ethical concerns you and I have about them are irrelevant, right?
It is a valid point. How in the world can you claim that Galileo has no relevance to today when you just brought up stem cell research? Woo!
The objection raised to embryonic stem cell research is that it kills a human life. This has a basis not only in religion, but in science. The objection to Galileo had no basis in science or religion.
Either you're arguing that an experiment that kills humans is fine or you're setting up a straw man here, claiming that Christians oppose science when no such thing is true.