Closer to the truth today than in the 1920s, no?

[Merla]

I was just wondering if you think we're any closer today in solving the nature of our origins than we were in the mid 1920s (the times of John Scope's) ? Are we really that? I am doubtful. Sure, we find new things every now and then to strengthen our opinion on how life evolved.. but at the same time, the number of theories increases and I'm not sure if we're actually getting anywhere.

[TINNY]

you might want to refer to my signature below:

[Fishteacher73]

Without a doubt we are getting closer and understand the nature of life than we did in the 1920's. In the 20's we did not even understand the nature of DNA at all, or even if it was involved with heredity. Just the chemical understanding of DNA helps bolster Darwin's basic theory about the mechanisms of evolution.

[lindagarrette]

I was just wondering if you think we're any closer today in solving the nature of our origins than we were in the mid 1920s (the times of John Scope's) ? Are we really that? I am doubtful. Sure, we find new things every now and then to strengthen our opinion on how life evolved.. but at the same time, the number of theories increases and I'm not sure if we're actually getting anywhere.

If by "we" you mean scientists, then it's very clear that progress is almost exponential in direction. The majority of "we," however, still cling to that "old time religion" which never changes.

[Merla]

Thank you,

 

Are there any connection between Frankenstein(originally entitled The Modern Prometheus) and this following reference to the myth of Promotheus(modern-day context) ?

 

"By contrast, the voices of biotechnology are Promothean, proactive and impatient with ethical restraints. Both need to exercise wisdom and prudence, always in short supply. I stand at the edge of a new world where human beings can virtually reinvent themselves. Together with politicians and the people, they must decide what is really meant by human life and progress"

[Fishteacher73]

The impact of new science could easily be constured as analagous to the impact of man taming fire.

 

In terms of religious context, it could be drawn as well. Prometheus was punished by the gods for his actions. It could be argued that this is the same fear that much of the faith-based opposition to such technologies have. The "immorality" of such actions (and the eventual vengence of God for disobeying).

[Stargazer]

I must agree with lindagarette, that scientists learn more and get a greater understanding for our nature all the time. Sadly the general population doesn't follow. Sure, the heliocentric worldview and the round Earth view are accepted since long ago, but a lot of people, even in the parts of the world that are in leading positions in science, still don't know about the age of the universe, or biological evolution. I think popularisation of science could help a bit, but not all the way.

[Biochemist]

...Sadly the general population doesn't follow. Sure, the heliocentric worldview and the round Earth view are accepted since long ago....I think popularisation of science could help a bit, but not all the way.

SG- Your point is valid. I am, however, equally struck by the thin knowledge that basic science people have about what "religious" people think. There are a lot of brilliant people on this site, but their knowledge of religious basics is often akin to a high school freshman's knowledge of biology: exposed, but not particularly informed.

 

I suggest that information trading both ways is useful.

[Stargazer]

SG- Your point is valid. I am, however, equally struck by the thin knowledge that basic science people have about what "religious" people think. There are a lot of brilliant people on this site, but their knowledge of religious basics is often akin to a high school freshman's knowledge of biology: exposed, but not particularly informed.

 

I suggest that information trading both ways is useful.

While I do like fiction I don't like it so much that I actually believe that the fictional stories are true, or that I can talk to the characters in them. Religion is irrational and when it comes to the understanding of the world, completely irrelevant. Science provides us with the means to better understand the universe and our place in it - religion has been standing in the way for centuries and even today this is happening. That religion and science are equal when it comes to the validity of their respective claims and methods, it's just a strange viewpoint. Religion, superstition and such things does not help.

[Biochemist]

Religion is irrational and when it comes to the understanding of the world, completely irrelevant....

This is a postulate. This is the part that I think deserves better airing within the "science" community. I am a basic scientist by nature, I believe in the validity of the scientific method, and I think that religion is neither irrational nor irrelevant.

[Stargazer]

This is a postulate. This is the part that I think deserves better airing within the "science" community. I am a basic scientist by nature, I believe in the validity of the scientific method, and I think that religion is neither irrational nor irrelevant.

Exactly how is any religion relevant when it comes to our understanding of the universe?

 

Also, I would like to know how religion is *rational* :-)

[Biochemist]

Exactly how is any religion relevant when it comes to our understanding of the universe?

 

Also, I would like to know how religion is *rational* :-)

I suggest a different thread for that topic.

[Queso]

another one has begun.

[TINNY]

OK. Back on track. Why hasn't anyone commented on my signature:

"The more you know about something, the more you know about everything".

 

Of course we are closer to the truth than in the 20s else all knowledge is irrelevant.

[lindagarrette]

Exactly how is any religion relevant when it comes to our understanding of the universe?

Religion has played a major role in retarding and even in some cases prohibiting our understanding of the universe. That's extremely relevant

[Biochemist]

Religion has played a major role in retarding and even in some cases prohibiting our understanding of the universe. That's extremely relevant

Isn't that a little bit like saying Democrats cause political conflict?

[paultrr]

Religion has played a major role in retarding and even in some cases prohibiting our understanding of the universe. That's extremely relevant

 

Einstein was a deist. Yet, his own beliefs spurned him on because he looked for order in the universe. The only point his individual beliefs got in the way was in the does God play dice perspective. Organized religion is actually what has played the major retarding role. It has never actually been the individual religion that got in the way. Many of the major minds down through the centuries who actually gave us the backbone of what we have in science today where religious people. Some where Catholic, some Protestant. Its not individual, personal religion that I see as a threat to progress of knolwedge. Its the organized fundamentalism no matter the source that tends to stand in the way. One prime example of this is found in the founding fathers of this country itself. Most of them where deists themselves. Yet, they believed in the rights of individuals to think for themselves and to be free. Interesting enough deists are not by nature an organized religion, with perhaps the exception of the Unitarians who themselves have always tended to be open minded. Only Church I know of where one can find people of many different divergent faiths when it comes to personal beliefs meeting in one place of worship(ie Pagans, Deist, etc).