I ask all to consider a mediation on the following questions.
Is global warming open for discussion? Or are conflicting observations to be dismissed?
Is evolution open for discussion? Do not limit your thinking to evolution versus intelligent design.
Is religion as it has been called in comments at sefora.org willful ignorance?
Is there a right for scientific research? If so, is there a right to tax people to provide for such research?
Are research practices subject to moral and ethical constraints. If so what is the source of those moral and ethics.
Can science really be separate from religion, morals, or ethics? I ask this question both of those who think they should be intermixed and of those who do not.
October 12, 2006 at 8:42 am
The comment “president Bush preventing funding for stem cell research” by one of the site commentators is absolutely wrong. President Bush is the first and only President to allow federal funding for “embryonic” stem cell research within certain moral and ethical guide lines. President Bush has not moved to stop federal funding for non-embryonic or for State or private funding for any type of stem cell research. The fact that the federal money trough was not opened willy-nilly to every aspect of embryonic stem cell research has been used by the anti-Bush crowd to falsly claim that President Bush banned or prevented funding of stem cell research.
October 15, 2006 at 2:01 pm
As a former scientist, there is indeed nothing quite so intrenched against reason as scientific theory. The dispassionate arbiter of the facts that is presented to the general public is rubbish.
After all, why do we have paradigm shifts? What that means is that the body of evidence against the current theory has become so overwhelming that it can no longer be ignored.
Nothing quite so partial as a scientist!
October 15, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Peter, I wish I could disagree, but for the most part I cannot. It is human nature to work within paradigms. My problem is people who refuse to acknowledge that they work within paradigms and claim some form of “pure science.”