Imagine a world where many people are not born the way they are just by chance, but by design. Not a design by a god but by men. What is one of the most common science fiction topics? Well thanks to scientific advancement people can start moving cloning more into science and less into fiction. Thanks to the impeccable work of many scientists across the world the world is moving forward in many ways. But it begs the question, what limits do politicians have to place on science? Is best to let them have free reign over their domain, as politicians have on their own, or do they need to be tethered? Because of the advancements in communications, the world culture is becoming less and less divisible, so anything in one country effects the rest of the world more and more every day. What is coming in the future, and is the human race overstepping its boundaries? There are many concerns to be faced in the future that are coming.
The battle between sciences and religion has been waged for as long as people have wanted to know what makes the world around work. Some may have turned to faith; because they couldn’t figure out how exactly it works, drawing on the ‘god of the gaps’ theory. The god of the gaps theory is endorsed by Neil DeGrasse Tyson as being how people have always ascribed what they, at that time, could not understand to God. "God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on" Saying that because they could not understand it, no one could because it must have been God’s domain. But in the modern world those ‘gaps’ are growing smaller and smaller, one of those gaps is, however, the “soul”. One of the major arguments from the religious community is ...
... middle of paper ...
...nd advantages to be found in the world of cloning. Will it be as good as promised? Will man eventually achieve immortality? Will man conquer God’s realm? Only the future will tell.
Works Cited
Klose, Stephanie. "Pop Culture Advisory: Cloning." Library Journal Reviews. Library Journal, 5 aaaa July 2013. Web. 22 May 2014.
Landau, Elizabeth. "Cloning Used to Make Stem Cells from Adult Humans."CNN. Cable
News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 20 May 2014.
Sample, Ian. "What's Wrong with Cloning Humans?" Theguardian.com. Guardian News and a aaa Media, 22 Apr. 2009. Web. 22 May 2014.
“Molecular and Cellular Cloning - Boundless Open Textbook." Boundless. Boundless, n.d. Web. aaaaa 22 May 2014.
"Semi-Solid Cloning with ClonaCell™ Methylcellulose-Based Cell Culture Media." Semi-Solid aaaa Cloning. Stemcell Technologies, n.d. Web. 22 May 2014.
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
Kass, Leon, and James Q. Wilson, eds. The ethics of human cloning. American Enterprise Institute, 1998.
"(261)". We can not undo what has been discovered and we must ensure that all countries involved with cloning form a committee to monitor the uses of this technology to ensure that it is used in the best interest of mankind. Works Cited Bishop, Michael J. - "The 'Bishop'" The "Enemies of Promise" The Presence of Others. C Comp. Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruskiewicz.
However, there is no researchers or method to either prove or disprove the existence of “God”. Descartes argues that the mind and soul cannot be measure in science; the mindless mechanistic “coincidences” is the direct results of God’s work. To conclude, the argument is all about faith and beliefs. There is no doubt that science contradicts religion, even some greatest scientists of the world have declared that there is some invisible power that we cannot explain through science. Yet, I believe that we should consider evidence that we have in order to examine the reality and “truth”. Our experiences of everyday life, the time that passed, the behaviors that we observe, were far more convincing than something that bases on a vague
This can take a turn for the worse: if scientists have to have their work follow what politics, religions, and people believe, we might limit what science stands for. Religion and politics should never have control over science, instead they should use science to help explain their own goals. Science should be used as a way to challenge old beliefs and help clear out fact from fiction. At the same time though, science should challenge itself so it can stay true to its main point of challenging old dogmas, as Carl Sagan said in his article.
In addition to its medicinal benefits, animal cloning could be used to produce tissues or organs for transplants (15). This can be done by culturing "embryonic stem cells," or "primitive cells that appear between ...
...t beings within one, good and evil, while cloning tries to create a whole new being. All three concepts believe that these experiments are very risky, and that they take a long time to perfect. Humanity should not continue the practice of cloning. There are too many risks and it is very unreliable and unpredictable.
Science and Religion dialogue has been a bitter-sweet topic for many people over the years. The controversy is not only common between one sole community, but affects a variety. The beliefs held about these topics has the potential to personally effect an individual, whether it be positively or negatively. In the United States, we draw only a fine line between religion and science, often failing to realize that the two benefit each other in copious ways but are not meant to interpreted in the same way. Due to this perspective, people seem to be influenced to pick one or the other, when in reality we should treat both science and religion with the same respect and recognize that they are completely separate from one another, along with having individual purposes. John F. Haught, a distinguished research professor at Georgetown University, published a book titled, “Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation”. In it he evaluates each side, persuading the reader that the truth is that both realms may benefit from each other despite the differences emphasized. John F. Haught introduces his audience with four approaches on Science and Religion. Haught’s third approach, contact, is of major significance to aid in the response of: “Does Science Rule out a Personal God?”
ABSTRACT: Curiously, in the late twentieth century, even agnostic cosmologists like Stephen Hawking—who is often compared with Einstein—pose metascientific questions concerning a Creator and the cosmos, which science per se is unable to answer. Modern science of the brain, e.g. Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind (1994), is only beginning to explore the relationship between the brain and the mind-the physiological and the epistemic. Galileo thought that God's two books-Nature and the Word-cannot be in conflict, since both have a common author: God. This entails, inter alia, that science and faith are to two roads to the Creator-God. David Granby recalls that once upon a time, science and religion were perceived as complementary enterprises, with each scientific advance confirming the grandeur of a Superior Intelligence-God. Are we then at the threshold of a new era of fruitful dialogue between science and religion, one that is mediated by philosophy in the classical sense? In this paper I explore this question in greater detail.
Cloning is another new medical advance that allows for many great possibilites. Exact organ matches for organ transplants could be made through cloning. Animal...
George J. Annas, “Why We Should Ban Human Cloning,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 339, no. 2 (July 9, 1998), pp. 118-125.
Wachbroit, Robert. The. “Human Cloning Isn’t as Scary as it Sounds.” The Washington Post, 2 March 1997.
When considering the basis for the understanding of both science and religion it is interesting to distinguish that both are based on an overwhelming desire to define a greater knowledge, and comprehension of the universe that surrounds us. Now while, science has based its knowledge of experimental basis, researcher, and scholarly work; religion
Faith has several strengths and weaknesses when used as a basis for knowledge in religion and the natural sciences. In order to fully analyze these strengths and weaknesses and determine which of the two is more prevalent, faith, religion, and the natural sciences should be distinguished from one another. In The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary faith is defined as the “belief and trust in God” or “allegiance to duty or a person” (270), religion as “an organized system of faith and worship” (617), and science as “knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method” (650). Faith may be considered a strong basis for knowledge in religion as religion is usually built around the concept of faith. However, faith may be a weak basis for knowledge in religion as certain teachings in a religion may not have a direct link to the concept of faith. Similarly, in the natural sciences, faith may also be seen as a strong basis for knowledge as a scientist has faith in the hypothesis he may be testing. Likewise, faith may be perceived as a weak basis for knowledge in the natural sciences as faith and the natural sciences tend to offer incongruous solutions to the same problem.
Up until the Enlightenment, mankind lived under the notion that religion, moreover intelligent design, was most likely the only explanation for the existence of life. However, people’s faith in the church’s ideals and teachings began to wither with the emergence of scientific ideas that were daringly presented to the world by great minds including Galileo and Darwin. The actuality that there was more to how and why we exist, besides just having an all-powerful creator, began to interest the curious minds in society. Thus, science began to emerge as an alternative and/or supplement to religion for some. Science provided a more analytical view of the world we see while religion was based more upon human tradition/faith and the more metaphysical world we don’t necessarily see. Today science may come across as having more solid evidence and grounding than religion because of scientific data that provides a seemingly more detailed overview of life’s complexity. “Einstein once said that the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible” (Polkinghorne, 62). Yet, we can still use theories and ideas from both, similar to Ian Barbour’s Dialouge and Integration models, to help us formulate an even more thorough concept of the universe using a human and religious perspective in addition to scientific data.