[quote=jrk;173740]We were not talking about the quality of personal values and ethics, but whether forbidding and forcing others to one set of values is pro-science or not (you claimed it was, and that's all I was objecting to).[/quote]
And I was simply attempting to rebuttal your objection. :smile: My point was that as the protection of sentient lifeforms is a tenet of scientific ethics, not just personally, but across the entire field, to restrict scientists who would otherwise attempt to violate those ethics is, indeed, pro-science.

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;173733]Actually, I can see quite easily how "dying the day he ate the fruit" fits in with Adam's 900+-year lifespan. Simple: on the day he ate the forbidden fruit, Adam became doomed to die, and died a spiritual death in which he was no longer a sinless creature. Thus, his actions on that day are what killed him.[/quote]Of course you can interpret it that way. But do you recognize others can interpret it differently? I was addressing Mini-geeks assertion (at least I think it was his) that creationism is an essential part of Christianity. It isn't, at least in my view. It may be an essential part of *traditional* post-apostolic Christianity, or *creedal* Christianity, but not of all Christianity.

[quote]I agree that all those much stronger reasons are also quite valid. However, for the purpose of the point which I was arguing, my argument needed to be one which applied to all stages of human growth, including that of a just-fertilized embryo (like those killed for stem cell research), which not all of the points you stated cover.[/quote]Asserting that a just-fertilized embryo is sentient is contrary to science. That is one reason why I think Republicans have it wrong in being so stringent. I can understand how one's belief system can lead them to believe that a just-fertilized embryo is human, has a spirit, and it is wrong to kill. I even share the opinion that they shouldn't be killed in most cases. But science tells us those few cells cannot feel, cannot think, and not everyone believes the spirit enters the body at conception (including me). So that is why I limited myself to the science of later months, because science itself is an advocate for saving the lives of the unborn at those points.

[QUOTE]But, for that matter, isn't a human still just as much a human, regardless of his parentage or the situation surrounding his birth? Regardless of whether the mother willingly allowed the baby to be conceived, or whether the parents were genetically distinct enough to produce a 100% healthy child, doesn't he still have the right to live? Even if he has major physical/genetic problems, the baby should still be allowed to live because, quite frankly, it's better to have a life hampered by problems than no life at all. [/QUOTE]Some people believe that after an egg is fertilized, that bunch of cells is full human. But clearly that bunch of cells is not sentient. It has no brain, no heart. But it also has the potential to have those things. Some believe that potential trumps all other concerns and makes them fully human. Some do not. But the science is clear: those cells are not yet sentient, but have the ability to grow and become so.

At least by the 5th month, one can no longer make the (sane) case that the child is not sentient/feeling, unless there are serious physical problems.

So, no, not everyone shares your belief that an embryo is already fully human, in the important ways.

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;173737]
This is not simply a case of someone's personal values. It is a case of life and death. To knowingly rob a potentially sentient lifeform of its life is a grievous breach of scientific ethics, not merely politics.[/QUOTE]
This is fascinating. The discussion is wildly off-topic by now, but for the rest of us that makes it at least less parochial than its beginnings.

Is this point you have made to be taken to reflect also disapproval of judicially sanctioned killing of criminals by the State?

[quote=99.94;173744]This is fascinating. The discussion is wildly off-topic by now, but for the rest of us that makes it at least less parochial than its beginnings.

Is this point you have made to be taken to reflect also disapproval of judicially sanctioned killing of criminals by the State?[/quote]
No, it does not apply in that case. In that case, the criminals, as sentient beings, made a conscious choice to commit a heinous crime, and thus brought the punishment upon themselves. It is very different than with an unborn child, who has not the ability nor the will to commit a heinous crime.

But, yes, you do make a good point that this discussion has become wildly off-topic. My apologies for any contributions I have made to this.

I suggest that the moderator split the thread and put the abortion specific posts into it.

[quote=rogue;173747]I suggest that the moderator split the thread and put the abortion specific posts into it.[/quote]
But, they were specifically related to discussing a policy that was being discussed, on-topic, in this thread; thus, even though they are not quite on the original topic, they are on a logical tangent from it and thus should be left in place, IMO.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;173611]You mean, if they would return to actually, sincerely, working to produce balanced budgets, the way they did before Reagan. The action you're referring to was a sham.[/QUOTE]

Please expound. Didn't the congress and president put the budget back into the black during those years?

IMO: A spurious "contract with america" is superior to a transparent "government takeover of industry".

I've been reading the thread and trying to decide how important this evolution thing is for the recovery of the Republican party. And how important it is that neither detweiller nor ewmayer gave an adequate explanation. detweiller's answer rates a D-. Saved from F only because he recognizes that "On the Origin of Species" is about the origin of species, but thoroughly confusing it with much less established theories about the origin of life and entirely missing both cornerstones of the theory. ewmayer's answer rates a C. He accurately got the "natural selection" cornerstone, but he failed to mention the equally important "random variation" cornerstone. Lamarkism fits into his answer.

But back to rabies for the Republican Party. I think this whole evolution debate is a proxy for a different debate. I think the real question is "do morality and religion have a role in the national debate?" It would be a win if the Republican Party could find an inclusive way to answer yes - a way that doesn't dictate fundamental Christianity as the only religion with a voice in the debate and doesn't try to force religion into the science curriculum.

[QUOTE=wblipp;173760]I think the real question is "do morality and religion have a role in the national debate?" It would be a win if the Republican Party could find an inclusive way to answer yes - a way that doesn't dictate fundamental Christianity as the only religion with a voice in the debate and doesn't try to force religion into the science curriculum.[/QUOTE]

The presumption with your question is that morality and religion are inseparable as if one is derived from the other. I don't know if I agree with that. A related question is whether laws should be based upon a morality. Where do some laws come from if they don't in some form evolve from morality?

[QUOTE=rogue;173792]The presumption with your question is that morality and religion are inseparable[/QUOTE]


A wrong reading of my intention.

I said "morality and religion" rather than only "religion" because I do not believe that only religion has a voice to contribute in the discussion of morality. Embracing these additional voices in the public debate would be a stretch from where the Republican Party seems to be right now - that stretch is what I am proposing as a remedy.

[QUOTE=wblipp;173760]I've been reading the thread and trying to decide how important this evolution thing is for the recovery of the Republican party. And how important it is that neither detweiller nor ewmayer gave an adequate explanation. detweiller's answer rates a D-. Saved from F only because he recognizes that "On the Origin of Species" is about the origin of species, but thoroughly confusing it with much less established theories about the origin of life and entirely missing both cornerstones of the theory. ewmayer's answer rates a C. He accurately got the "natural selection" cornerstone, but he failed to mention the equally important "random variation" cornerstone. Lamarkism fits into his answer.[/QUOTE]While I agree with you that the theory of evolution doesn't necessarily talk about the origin of life; is it not the case that this is where ID supporters and evolutionists clash? ID says that life was designed; and certain structures of life were intentionally made, whether or not evolution is the cause for speciation (within the confines of the designer's plan). Is it not the case that the disagreement occurs exactly on this point (the genesis of initial life structures)?