The Biblical Case for Being Pro-Choice and Funding Stem Cell Research

Genesis 2.7 says, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Fetuses and stem-cells, on the other hand are not breathing. And until they take their first breath, they would not be considered as being alive or having a soul as indicated by Genesis 2.7 or by the law in most states. When a baby is found dead and abandoned, the test for whether it is a homicide or a stillborn is to perform an autopsy and determine if the lungs have ever been inflated. No inflation equals no breathing equals no homicide. So, it would seem that Genesis 2.7, our legal code and I all agree on the point that Abortion and Stem Cell Research are not murder.

I think you missed what I've been saying all along, that no theory of origins can be definitively proven. My preference is to believe the theory that most closely fits the evidence in the world around us. Your preference seems to be to dismiss creation theory as a knee-jerk reaction because you don't want to consider the option that the Bible might be literal. The article I posted was one of hundreds that I could post which demonstrates some serious flaws in evolutionary theory.

When you say to me, "Your preference seems to be to dismiss creation theory as a knee-jerk reaction because you don't want to consider the option that the Bible might be literal," you miss one point about my reasoning process. If creationism is valid, it is not because it is based on science, but because God put misleading scientific evidence in the way of scientists.

If I would have said, "All of this is of course consistent with the simultaneous creation of all water-dwelling creatures on day six of creation week", it would not have been any less valid scientifically. It would have been invalid versus creationism based on Biblical text.

Trying to pass off religion as science is my complaint and when the USA tries to develop scientists for the future, this inability to distinguish myth from scientific research will harm our nation. This is one of the reasons why the USA has not taken the lead in fighting climate change, because we as a political nation bordering on a theocracy fight science. We will be at the level of 3rd world Muslim countries soon if we do not start realizing the difference.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jun01.html:

Lungs evolved very early in our ancestry. They are homologous to swim bladders in fish, and existing species show clearly that the various intermediate steps are quite viable. Lungs may have evolved as a floatation aid, which was then co-opted to assist in respiration; or as a respiration aid, which was then co-opted to assist in floatation control. Swim bladders in modern fish apparently evolved from lungs, and the respiration function has been lost.

In either case, the main source of respiration for organisms with the first lungs was through the gills. Evolution is like that. It co-opts and modifies structures for new purposes. As lungs became more important for respiration in tetrapod evolution, gills became less important, until at some point gills were no longer contributing to respiration.

A link with some background: Sarcopterygii: Overview

Trying to pass off religion as science is my complaint and when the USA tries to develop scientists for the future, this inability to distinguish myth from scientific research will harm our nation.

And yet an avowed evolutionist says: At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth."

You disregard my viewpoint because you say it lacks scientific research, but an avowed evolutionist says there's nothing in the geological record that negates creationism. So who's right? I think you're disregarding it either because you don't like what it stands for or you haven't researched it. Not because it's not scientific. As an aside, you can believe in ID and not believe in God as the Creator.

You disregard my viewpoint because you say it lacks scientific research, but an avowed evolutionist says there's nothing in the geological record that negates creationism.

Not having evidence against a hypothesis does not equal evidence for it.

Personally, I have no issue with people wanting to learn creationism or ID. I don't think they're right, but I think they should be able to learn it if they want to. The only issue I have with it is when it is taught in a science class. I think ID and creationism should be relegated to religion and/or philosophy classes, not biology classes.

Not having evidence against a hypothesis does not equal evidence for it.

If I have a hypothesis and I believe the evidence substantiates it, and you can produce no evidence to contradict it, isn't that the same thing?

No, I don't believe it is the same thing. In order for a hypothesis to be taught as a scientific theory in science classes, it has to be accepted by the majority of the scientific community, not just you.

For example, BJean posted a graph in one of the other threads that showed that global warming was caused by declining numbers of pirates. By your statement, because there isn't evidence to contradict that hypothesis, there is proof that it is correct. In other words, the decline in pirates caused global warming, since we can't prove it didn't.

No, I don't believe it is the same thing. In order for a hypothesis to be taught as a scientific theory in science classes, it has to be accepted by the majority of the scientific community, not just you.

So before the majority of the scientific community accepted evolution theory, it should have been taught? Because there was a time when this was reversed.

BTW, you're right. I used faulty language. The theory is accepted by many, many more than just me.

For example, BJean posted a graph in one of the other threads that showed that global warming was caused by declining numbers of pirates. By your statement, because there isn't evidence to contradict that hypothesis, there is proof that it is correct. In other words, the decline in pirates caused global warming, since we can't prove it didn't.

Well, that's slightly idiotic. You could start with the fact that there is no correlation between piracy and global temperatures. That comparison is a little of a stretch.

So before the majority of the scientific community accepted evolution theory, it should have been taught? Because there was a time when this was reversed.

I think I may not have been very clear. Generally, a scientific theory is accepted by scientists before it is accepted by lay-people. It was that way with evolution. 150 years ago, If you went and asked the average Joe on the street how humans came to be, he would say that God created us. It took evolution a long time before it was accepted enough to be taught in school. In other words, in order for a theory (at least a controversial one) to be taught in school, it has to be accepted by the majority of mainstream science.

Well, that's slightly idiotic. You could start with the fact that there is no correlation between piracy and global temperatures. That comparison is a little of a stretch.

It really isn't, IMO. There is a correlation between declining numbers of pirates and rising temperatures. Remember, though, a correlation doesn't mean the two are related. But my point still stands. If I were to use your "no evidence against a theory equals evidence for it" idea, then I could reasonably say that the decline in pirates has caused global warming, because there is no evidence saying that it hasn't. Of course, there is no evidence supporting that hypothesis, except for the fact that there is no evidence proving it wrong.

Here's another analogy: My cat died right after the lightbulb in my lamp blew. I could theorize that the lightbulb blowing caused my cat to die. By your line of thought, since no one can produce incontrovertible evidence that my bulb blowing did not cause my cat to die, there is evidence that it did cause my cat to die.

Like you said, it is slightly idiotic.

So you don't consider that the complexity of life even remotely could suggest that a designer was involved? If you came across a fully constructed building, would you believe there was no architect?

Not having evidence against a hypothesis does not equal evidence for it.

Personally, I have no issue with people wanting to learn creationism or ID. I don't think they're right, but I think they should be able to learn it if they want to. The only issue I have with it is when it is taught in a science class. I think ID and creationism should be relegated to religion and/or philosophy classes, not biology classes.

I believe that I was basically saying the same thing when I said, "Trying to pass off religion as science is my complaint".

In other words, in order for a theory (at least a controversial one) to be taught in school, it has to be accepted by the majority of mainstream science.

Well that's definitely true, because there are blatant lies that are still presented in evolutionary textbooks, such as Haeckel's drawings of various life forms in different stages of development. Once an establishment has spouted something as truth, it takes a heck of a lot of time to reverse and/or recant.

So you don't consider that the complexity of life even remotely could suggest that a designer was involved? If you came across a fully constructed building, would you believe there was no architect?

It would seem that God is more complex that even the most complex building or organism, so who do you think designed God?

What I'm saying is that at some point evolution theory had to go from not being generally accepted by the scientific community to being accepted enough by the scientific community to be taught in schools. The same situation could be extended to intelligent design; while the proponents of it do not number as many as the proponents of evolution theory, they may one day do so -- and they may also be right. Just as evolutionists once fought an uphill battle -- and won -- so are creationists fighting an uphill battle now.

To dismiss any theory because the scientific community doesn't accept it would mean that no new theory is EVER accepted.

Well that's definitely true, because there are blatant lies that are still presented in evolutionary textbooks, such as Haeckel's drawings of various life forms in different stages of development. Once an establishment has spouted something as truth, it takes a heck of a lot of time to reverse and/or recant.

And when scientists were put to death by the (philosophical) ancestors of creationists, would you also have said that once the establishment has spouted something as truth, it takes a heck of a lot of time to reverse it?