|
I feel this is a good place than any to explore the differences within our group, especially on this topic. Where do you stand on this issue and why? Relating to the news, where do you stand on the issue of embryonic stem cell research and why?
As far as evolution is concerned I would have to say that I believe in a blend of ideas. I am some what religious and must believe in the existence of a God. How ever I do not agree with the whole Adam and Eve business. I believe that there was such a thing as the Big Bang, and things evolved from others, this of course came about because of a God. When it comes down to embryonic stem cell research I would have to say (as harsh as this may sound) that if some one can get their hands on a fetus, that since it is dead any way, you might as well try and save some one else with it. Of course that brings into play the whole idea of people going into this for profit, as confusing as that may seem.
Although I do not condsider myself athiest, I do not believe in a God or higher power. As for what should be taught in public school systems, it should be evolution, which is more than just a theory (a scientific theroy always has multiple studies and ample evidence to back it up anyway) but it is a paradigm. Schools should teach evolution as that and mention that many disagree and believe in a God created humankind. Then discussing should ensue, because isn't talking about ideas the best way learning is done?
|
Aliter81 |
07:48pm Mar 24, 2002 EST |
4 of 6 |
 |
|
i believe in evolution. there is scientific evidence that supports it, as far as i know the only evidence of creationism is in the bible. how are you going to deny the fact that they have found skulls half- way between monkies and humans? i have a scientific brain, i need facts. the theory of evolution can provide facts, creationism can't.
I want to make it clear I also believe in evolution. actually, the evolution theroy does not state we evolved from chimps, but that we have a common ancestor. also, for those that are creationalists, darwin believed that god put life on earth and we evolved from there, which is actually the theroy that Ohio is trying to make mandatory now.
As of the ideas presented thus far, it occurs to me that most of you are evolutionists. Cowabunga stated that evolution is a 'scientific theory,' so now is evolution science or is it a religion? Now when it comes to microevolution (fish evolving into a higher form of fish; a frog evolving to have a longer tounge so that it can catch prey easier) that undoubtedly is true. Macroevolution (i.e. birds coming from lizards, man having a common ancestor with apes (which by the way is the Missing Link, meaning scientists have not found it yet), and that all life on earth came from one single-celled organism), I cannot agree with. Can you study macroevolution; can you place a cat in a lab and say, "and now we will watch this cat evolve into a dog!"? What I'm saying is is that much of the evolutionary evidence isn't rock solid.
I agree that there isn't such evidence supporting creationism either. Projectorigins said that he doesn't agree with the "whole Adam and Eve business"; if one believes that the Bible was inspired by God, then one can say that God is the great Storyteller. Maybe Adam and Eve isn't entirely true, I mean I don't believe that the universe was created in seven days. Take it from God's point of view (for all those who do not believe in God, I do not mean to offend you here); He needed to explain how life started here in some simple way so that we may understand. Again, if you believe that God does exist, then He would never allow for science to disprove the Bible, and He would never allow for science to prove the Bible either. Faith is based on Mystery, and without Mystery, there would be no reason for Faith. If we knew everything little thing there was to know about Life, what would then be the point of living?
Regarding education, I say teach both Evolution and Creationism in the classroom, have discussions, and then leave the student to decide whether or not they were specially designed or just a mere accident of nature. And don't tell me that this would infringe on the Separation of Church and State. Amendment one states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"; it means that Congress cannot pass a law to declare the U.S. as having a national religion (like Israel) (that is what they mean by separation of church and state; I mean colonists came to this country for religious purposes) or to hinder one from practicing their religion in any place whether public or private. Of course, a teacher cannot preach in a classroom, but a teacher can mediate in a discussion between students in the classroom concerning evolution and creationism.
Embryonic stem cell research brings in the debate between pro-life and pro-choice. If you believe that life begins at conception (as I do), then embryonic stem cell research is definately taking of the life of a human being. If you do not believe that, then this type of research is okay. Why should scientists, though, need to take fetuses when adult stem cells and cells from umbilical cords and placentas have shown more promising results? My ideas on abortion will be discussed in its appropriate area...
Thank you again for listening.
 |
