More Utterances from a GOP House Science Committee Member

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD. "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1944808.html

What in the world are assclowns like this guy (and Todd Akin, BTW) doing serving on the House Science Committee?

We have to fulfill the "assclown quota" in order to meet some diversity goal?

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

After a single visit to Chuck-e-Cheese with an ex-girlfriend and her son, I came to conclusion that we should legalize abortion up to the 60th trimester.

Regards,
Dave

[mezz]

Originally Posted by Boreas

That's not a scientific question. It's a philosophical one and not all religions are in agreement there.

The most practical answer is that human life begins at the point of viability, or the point at which a fetus can survive on its own.

That's around 6 or 7 months (I think). Early Christians put it at the moment of "quickening". That's the moment that the mother first feels the child moving inside her. Somewhat later, in the Dark Ages, Christianity permitted abortion if the aborted fetus didn't look human.

Jews, at around the time of Christ considered that a child wasn't fully human until it had survived for a month.

This whole thing about being human at the time of conception is very recent and, again, philosophical rather than scientific.

John

Sure it's a scientific question... and a religious one and a philisophical one.

The viability answer is flawed. An infant cannot survive on it's own. Have you ever watched survival shows? Most adults aren't viable completely on their own. Science could be argued to point to the first cell division. I couldn't care less about the historical perspectives. My reasons are self evident given your examples. I have kids so my practical reasoning based on the experience of being a parent during pregnangy would tend to direct me towards thinking that the answer is much closer to conception.

The bottom line for me is that I just don't know exactly. It is somewhere between conception and birth. Science hasn't been capable of providing an answer and it takes some blind faith (isn't all faith blind - sorry about the linquistic redundancy) to come to any point within the range of "between conception and birth" and say that is where a human life begins.

So I just don't know and I don't expect to know, but I do believe we are potentially dealing with a very important issue here - the life of a human being, a completely innocent and completely helpless human being. Therefore I seek to decide my stance while remaining completely free of personal motives and that leads me to err on the side of preserving what may be an innocent person's life.... because the alternative (if we are wrong) would be unthinkable. I don't wish or choose to believe this. It can be quite inconvenient, but I cannot help the way I feel. Just as it might be very nice to believe in god and very conforting in times of trouble etc, I just can't force myself to believe in something I don't.

So think about the possibility that a 1 day or 1 week old foetus is a life. If that possibility exists and can't be disproven, isn't it morally irresponsible to not err on the side of caution and preservation here?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mezz

Sure it's a scientific question... and a religious one and a philisophical one.

Tell me why it's scientific. Where's the science supporting any view of when human life begins.

The viability answer is flawed. An infant cannot survive on it's own.

The flaw is in my post. What I meant and what I should have said is that the point of viability is that at which a child can survive outside the womb.

Science could be argued to point to the first cell division.

Argue it then.

The bottom line for me is that I just don't know exactly. It is somewhere between conception and birth. Science hasn't been capable of providing an answer and it takes some blind faith (isn't all faith blind - sorry about the linquistic redundancy) to come to any point within the range of "between conception and birth" and say that is where a human life begins.

Science doesn't try to.

So think about the possibility that a 1 day or 1 week old foetus is a life. If that possibility exists and can't be disproven, isn't it morally irresponsible to not err on the side of caution and preservation here?

First, at one day what you have is a zygote. At one week it's a blastocyst. The fetal stage begins at about 9 weeks.

Second, you're now talking about "life", rather than human life which is where you started. "Life" is a much broader concept. I suppose a ball of undifferentiated cells with the capability of cell division can be considered life but in what recognizable sense can it be considered human?

John

[mezz]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Second, you're now talking about "life", rather than human life which is where you started. "Life" is a much broader concept. I suppose a ball of undifferentiated cells with the capability of cell division can be considered life but in what recognizable sense can it be considered human?

John

Science can prove that human mothers have human babies and thus that ball of cells is not going to mature into a reptile.

[finnbow]

I think Mezz's argument points out the fundamental fallacy (as well as the origins) of organized religion. Religion is there to provide simple answers to the masses on complex questions that have eluded scientific query to that point. The trouble comes when science proves something that runs counter to long-held religious beliefs (flat earth, earth as center of the universe, creationism ...).

[mezz]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I think Mezz's argument points out the fundamental fallacy (as well as the origins) of organized religion. Religion is there to provide simple answers to the masses on complex questions that have eluded scientific query to that point. The trouble comes when science proves something that runs counter to long-held religious beliefs (flat earth, earth as center of the universe, creationism ...).

Don't knock simplicity. Every decision comes down to a 1 or a 0. If not, it simply is not a decision. Everyone probably has a moral responsibility to at least reach a decision about where they stand on the issues they choose to debate... and that's how decisions are reached... boiling the nuances down to a 1 or a 0.

[Boreas]

Actually, every problem comes down to the interaction of huge numbers of 1s and 0s. Reducing this incredibly complex reality to a simple yes/no, good/bad, right/wrong fantasy is absurd.

It is, however, a revealing glimpse into what passes for thinking on the Right.

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Show me lots of examples then.

Global warming

The Big Bang

Dark matter

Black holes

Wormholes

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mezz

A lot of science and religion is actually on equal footing in terms of proof.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Show me lots of examples then.

Originally Posted by whell

Global warming

The Big Bang

Dark matter

Black holes

Wormholes

There is no equality in understanding or parity in terms of research between religion and science on ANY of the things you list.

Global climate change is settled science. Period.

Scientists are working on all of the rest of the phenomena you list and are making significant progress toward understanding them.

Religion says nothing on any of these subjects beyond declaring them "Divine Mysteries".

John