expelled

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]Very few people actually base their morality on God. Almost every Christian I have questioned about morality picks and chooses from the Bible the bits that fit what they want to believe.
Morality is most often based on our internal instinct rather than any logical set of rules.
There are a few moral rules that most people do agree on. One is that the in ...[text shortened]... rson. If we decide to breed humans, should we go for blond, black, brown or red hair? Who decides?

Would you be suprised if I agreed with you in part? There is a verse in the Bible that goes something like this, "All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way". Also their is the teaching that we have an innate moral compus called a conscience to help guide us. However, as we all know this runs askew every now and then.

Having said that, I can speak for myself and for other Christians I know when I say that having Christ in their lives as a moral compus has significantly improved us in a variety of ways and in general I think we are richer for it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
People with severe genetic diseases should probably not have children for the sake of the children, but if we impose that on them we are violating their individual right to have children. The real question is, if someone knowingly has a child which is severely genetically disadvantaged in some way, is that person guilty of a crime?[/b]

An even better question is how could one know with a 100% gaurantee that their offsrping would be genetically disadvantaged? I once heard someone ask me the question that if two parents had had 6 or 7 children who had either died or were genetically disadvantaged in some way if I would choose to abort the last pregnancy. Of course if you said yes, then the person woud tell you that you had just aborted Beethoven. Then again, he did loose his hearing at an early age so perhaps the answer should have been yes. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Having said all that, it then begs the question as to what we base or morality on? In terms of Darwin, he used science to say that it would be "good" for mankind to prevent stupid/weak people from breeding. In fact, we would be better off without them based on his scientiic knowledge. However, we should not kill them off. Here we see science being used to ...[text shortened]... orms and/or religious dogma that is not based upon any type of scientic discipline whatsoever.

Darwin used science to show that if our goal is to improve the average intelligence and strength of humans then selective breading by not allowing stupid/weak people to breed will achieve that goal. Your mistake (and possibly his) is to assign the moral component to the method of achieving the goal and not the goal itself. Thus you conclude that the morality is based on logic which is false. The goal itself is based on a moral desire which is not explained by either you or Darwin and science, and logic only assist us in finding a way to achieve that goal. Similarly with the decision on whether or not to kill the stupid/weak people, it is a moral decision and science can only help us when it comes to carrying out the decided course of action.

Originally posted by whodey
An even better question is how could one know with a 100% gaurantee that their offsrping would be genetically disadvantaged?

In some cases it is possible to know for sure, in other cases there is merely a chance. But in both cases that is no guarantee that the offspring will not have certain good talents.

I once heard someone ask me the question that if two parents had had 6 or 7 children who had either died or were genetically disadvantaged in some way if I would choose to abort the last pregnancy. Of course if you said yes, then the person woud tell you that you had just aborted Beethoven. Then again, he did loose his hearing at an early age so perhaps the answer should have been yes. 😛
Note: In the vast majority of cases the death of children usually has nothing to do with genetics.
Now you are adding another component - abortion. Note that deciding not to have children is not the same as deciding to have an abortion. If we leave the abortion bit out of the equation then your argument would lead to the ridiculous conclusion that everyone should have as many children as they possibly can just in case one of them is Beethoven.
The thing that you have missed is that it is also possible that by having that child the family in question would be denying another family the opportunity to have a child which also might have been Beethoven. The key factor is that the other family has a higher probability of having a genetically healthy child.

I personally believe that selective breeding would be good for society. However, I also know that:
1. There is the major issue of who decides what characteristics are desirable.
2. The 'good of society' must be weighed against the rights of the individual to have children.
3. It is actually more important to stop people having too many children for economic reasons than it is for genetic reasons. I personally think that the world would be better off if the poorest of the poor which currently have the highest birth rates had less children. However it should probably be tackled via education and the supply of optional birth control measures rather than by force.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Darwin used science to show that [b]if our goal is to improve the average intelligence and strength of humans then selective breading by not allowing stupid/weak people to breed will achieve that goal. Your mistake (and possibly his) is to assign the moral component to the method of achieving the goal and not the goal itself. Thus you conclude that th ...[text shortened]... ecision and science can only help us when it comes to carrying out the decided course of action.[/b]

So what you are saying is that science can only take us so far and then we need to turn to other disciplines such as philosophy, theology etc. to help us sort out how we should proceed with our scientific knowledge?

Originally posted by twhitehead

Now you are adding another component - abortion. Note that deciding not to have children is not the same as deciding to have an abortion. If we leave the abortion bit out of the equation then your argument would lead to the ridiculous conclusion that everyone should have as many children as they possibly can just in case one of them is Beethoven.

Well of course abortion is not the same as using various kinds of birth control and deciding not to have sex, however, what we we are discussing is whether or not to have children. Therefore, if one decided not to have children it would seem logical that they would use contraceptives or decide not to have sex. However, if neither of these choices worked for whatever reason then they would then be faced with having an abortion. So in that since abortion does enter the picture.

Of course all of this talk about abortion and birth control takes me back to Margret Sanger and her creation of Planned Parenthood. It was her contention, as it seems to be yours, that introducing this program might help aleviate the problem of the "poor" and "weak" from reproducing at such a fast and furious rate in comparison to the "well to do" counterparts. However, as we see today nothing much has changed except for the fact that those with financial means seem to be aborting their offspring faster than their poorer counterparts. Case in point is the phenomenon known as birth dirth in the industrialized nations that we see today. Now those from the third world and the poorer countries are suppling us with a population that is noticably abscent in the industrialized nations. In the US we have Latino's coming in. In Europe we have North Africans coming in etc.

Of course, Margret Sanger was also under the impression that "negros" were somewhat inferior as did Charles Darwin and should be targeted by Planned Parenthood as a result. But that is for another discussion. Perhaps it was simply the accepted scientific view for that time.

Make no mistake about it, there is a eugenic component regarding abortion. Margret Sanger would have agreed.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I personally believe that selective breeding would be good for society. However, I also know that:
1. There is the major issue of who decides what characteristics are desirable.
2. The 'good of society' must be weighed against the rights of the individual to have children.
3. It is actually more important to stop people having too many children for eco ...[text shortened]... tackled via education and the supply of optional birth control measures rather than by force.[/b]

You are right to point out the problems with your proposition of eugenically engineering society. Perhaps we have learned our lessons from past experiences by trying to do so. Unfortunatly, however, I kind of doubt it.

Originally posted by whodey
So what you are saying is that science can only take us so far and then we need to turn to other disciplines such as philosophy, theology etc. to help us sort out how we should proceed with our scientific knowledge?

I personally would not use Theology for that at all.
I think that we mostly base our morals on our own internal "innate moral compass called a conscience" that you described earlier. I do not see a major problem with that combined with a little logic being sufficient for most purposes. Generally we all recognize the value of the basic rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you, with the added clause: unless there is significant benefit to yourself in not doing so. Where we tend to differ is what amount of personal benefit is worth violating the rule over.
Even the scenario of society over individual is really the same rule, it is saying that we can sacrifice the individual at the expense of personal benefit in terms of an improved society. Of course nobody ever proposes the idea when they themselves are on the list of those to be sacrificed.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Give me an example.

It's your boy Hovind in jail.

And your guys from Dover who were threatened by Judge Jones on accounts of perjury.

You're making Jesus cry.

What?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What?
Kelly

Well, most of your creationist and ID bunch seem to get found guilty of lying under oath, fraud, perjury, heck even one of your best and brightest (if you want to use that term) Ted Haggard was found high on crystal meth in the "company" of a male prostitute, and I don't think it was a confessional session, either.

The point is, you Christians, with these supposed morals you get from your "God", seem to have no problems with lying, cheating and blatant hypocracy. Why should we trust anything which comes from these guys?

Now, show me the bad things us scientists are doing.

Originally posted by whodey
An even better question is how could one know with a 100% gaurantee that their offsrping would be genetically disadvantaged? I once heard someone ask me the question that if two parents had had 6 or 7 children who had either died or were genetically disadvantaged in some way if I would choose to abort the last pregnancy. Of course if you said yes, then the ...[text shortened]... again, he did loose his hearing at an early age so perhaps the answer should have been yes. 😛

This is an absolute myth. It's amazing that with the internet and other resources that such a
preposterous story continues to be propogated.

Beethoven was the second of his parents' children. The first, an older brother, died in infancy.
Such infant mortality was common, and there is no record that this death was unusual. Of the
other five children his parents had, one other died in infancy, and two others died in their second
year. Two younger siblings (brothers) survived into adulthood, one dying of consumption in his
forties, the other at the ripe age of 72. Given childhood mortality rates, Beethoven's mother was
well within the average. None had any record of weird genetic anomalies, mental retardation,
deafness or whatever. Indeed Beethoven's deafness was caused by scarlet fever or lead
poisoning, so it had nothing to do with genetics.

Next time you hear this story, set aside your opposition to abortion and inform the person that
the story is utterly false.

Nemesio

Originally posted by whodey
Nuclear weapons is another good example of an ethical delimma in terms of science verses mankind. For example, was it ethical for the US to use them on Japan? I guess my point in all of this is, is that morality plays a bigger role in the welfare of mankind than does scientific morality. As a matter of fact, if mankind cannot act ethically then all of his ...[text shortened]... man named Charles Darwin in regards to his interpretation of science and the morality therof?

I think we have to realise that information is morally neutral. Science per se is morally neutral. Individual scientific investigations may have ehitcal implications, yet that is a result of people's actions.

Sure, knowledge gained through science can be used to bad effect. However, it can, and indeed has, been used for great amount of good in the world. Millions are alive now that would otherwise be dead. Many diseases have been eradicated, or are now treatable which weren't before.

Individual human morality is based upon us thinking about how we would like to be treated ourselves, especially in terms of reciprocal altruism and group hierarchies. We see it in other species, and in ourselves too.

If I were to be cynical, I would point out that 2000 years after Jesus we're using our new found toys that science has made possible to kill and hurt each other. It doesn't say much about religion's ability to instil morality into people, does it now?

Originally posted by whodey
I can fully undertstand the religious phobia that has engulfed the scientific community because of this sort of history. Science and religion have been at war now since the inquisitions and perhaps even earlier. However, it is important to note what we have learned about human nature from the time during the inquisitions as well as from what is happening to ...[text shortened]... eking only to sterilize them. Others can choose Darwins moral perspective if they like.

I hardly think Darwin was so vehemently opposed to the church, at least perhaps until he realised it for what it was. He held a degree in theology from Christ's college, Cambridge (he was 10th in his class, mainly because he didn't like the other subjects - he aced theology, apparently). Most of his teachers were Reverends, and he was keen, as a young man, on the writings of William Paley.

Darwin himself said that whilst the scientific evidence was that Natural selection was something that happenned, he felt we should protect the weak and needy.

If the scientific community hold animosity towards religion, it is merely because of religions continued attacks on science. We've tolerated it for long enough.

Originally posted by whodey
So what you are saying is that science can only take us so far and then we need to turn to other disciplines such as philosophy, theology etc. to help us sort out how we should proceed with our scientific knowledge?

Think of it this way; science is the operator's manual for an uzi. How the gun is used, whether for good or bad, is not determined by the writer of the manual.

I think philosophy, empathy and logic are good places to start when trying to characterise good and bad. I don't know about religion so much though.

Originally posted by whodey
Of course, Margret Sanger was also under the impression that "negros" were somewhat inferior as did Charles Darwin...

No, he didn't.

From his Wiki article.

"He learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed black slave who told him exciting tales of the South American rainforest. Later, in The Descent of Man, he used this experience as evidence that “Negroes and Europeans” were closely related despite superficial differences in appearance."

Hardly the words of a racist.

Even his words may be considered racist nowadays, but we shouldn't judge him by today's, rather different, standards.