McMahan explains that a sperm and ovum are not developed as a human like us, therefore, we are not killing a being only preventing one from existing. The fetus is not the same human organism that we are this is why killing it would not be morally wrong. HESC (harvest embryonic stem cells) research shows that people do not see the embryo as having the same moral rights as we do. In other words, fetuses are not believed to have an equivalent moral status compared to adult humans, but we do not act this way. Furthermore, embryos are used for assisted conception leaving many of them frozen preventing them from existing or being killed off (McMahan, 188).
Therefore, it is a problem that will arise since there will be conflicts between people as a result of differing opinions. Certain religions consider it to be immoral. From the point of view of a Christian they have concluded that the status of an embryo is similar to that of a human because it will become one and thus they should be treated with respect thinking of the human it will become. The main concern for religious groups as such from all religions is that through this they are “playing god”. They believe that messing with Gods will is erroneous and this will cause problems to arise between different groups who oppose the opinion therefore stem cell transplants are better off avoided and only tested in the laboratories but not performed on humans.
Philip Kitcher in “Abusing science: The case against creationism” argues about how creationists have motives in which they want to show that the theory of evolution are just lies. They will pick on every theory they find and claim them as untestable. The author states that creationist use tautology objection, which means that whatever the evolution theory is it cannot be tested and is classified as not real science. The author hen states that creationist do not thoroughly understand what their objections borrowed from evolutionist really mean. All they do is get whatever information makes sense to them and turn it around to a point in which will justify their point of view against evolutionist.
The unfortunate truth about the world is that it is far from perfect but, depending on the eye of the beholder it can either be seen as encouraging or detrimental to society. Examining imperfection through a biological perspective one can see that imperfections is what makes each individual distinct from one another, especially during reproduction. When humans reproduce not only do both the mother and father pass on their genes to their offspring but also combine and mix different genes to create amalgamation of both parents, ultimately fabricating variation among the human race. If humans reproduced like most single celled organism in which they divide themselves into an identical or perfect copy of itself then there would be no distinction among humans, creating a dull and directionless life. On the contrary, the complexity of and individuals mind can be detrimental to society.
The author states that the scripture mentions about miscarriage but it seems that the Old Testament or New Testament period did not consider abortion as a preferable option, primarily because God commanded the living and human being to have dominion over the Earth. It begs the question when and how humans came to think about abortion? As men and women, respectively, each one understand his or her participation in the reproduction and giving birth to children, I do wonder what made humans think about destroying a life, even though one want to avoid being judgmental in asking if the child is a human? Looking back at the Old Testament, and the first murder committed by a brother, one can compare the cause of killing. It is jealousy and fear of being better than the other.
Darwin was known for trying his best to present his scientific ideas in a way that it did not offend any believer or even in some perspectives were compatible with God. But his theory has been manipulated by both supporters and opposes of his work. Many people from a religious perspective believe that Darwin's theory undermines the fundamental beliefs that they hold, almost as an attack to their values (Dennett, 1995). Darwin's theory is that humans have evolved over time from other organisms, this is almost a slap-in-the-face for one of Christianity's core beliefs. Which is that God made us in His image when He made Adam and Eve; this means that above any other creature on the planet humanity has a special relationship with God.
His theories would predate all ideas that God created man. The theory of evolution would explain how all living beings came to be and could explain life all the way back to just a split second after the Big Bang. Both Saint Augustine and Martin Luther were believers in the scientific community, but they would have seen these findings in totally different lights. Saint Augustine would have agreed that the findings by Charles Darwin were true and that the stories of creation were more allegorical than literal. Martin Luther would have been more headstrong and believed that Darwinism was more fake science that could not truly be proven.
But, the argument is still wrong. If this argument is applied to my normative ethical theory, it falls flat. A fetus, or a baby, is created by God, so killing the baby dishonors what God has created. While God does give us the ability to choose how we live our lives, He does not want us to make choices that will destroy what He has created to share with us or made to make us enjoy life. If I was told the only way I could keep on living was to have an abortion, I would let my baby have a shot at life.
Is he a creator or not? The answer seems to be evident: he changed DNI of cells, in fact, created noocytes, so, he is simply a creator. However, it`s not so evident in the novel. Vergil is not agree with the politics of Gentron and its aims – he thinks that the creation of biochips is not as fruitful as can be genetically modified cells, however the work on the mammal`s cells is forbidden in Genetron because of ethical reasons. Therefore, Vergil has a conflict with Genetron and tries to create his own invention and a laboratory.
Mindell tells us that “proponents of intelligent design claim that some features of life are too complicated to have evolved naturally. Although they emphasize that the designer is not necessarily God, proponents uniformly believe that God is the designer…” Mindell quotes law professor, Phillip Johnson, a proponent of intelligent design and author of Darwin on Trial: “Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” “Intelligent design proponents clearly believe that God is an active participant in creation, though they are divided as to whether this activity takes the form of front-loading all outcomes at the Big Bang, episodic intervention of the progressive creationism form, or other, less well-articulated possibilities. Theistic evolution, however, is ruled out or at best viewed as an ill-advised accommodation.” Intelligent design can be seen as “faith” taking “fact” seriously by arguing that the complexity of origins cannot be adequately explained by evolutionists. Scott, however, says that “even if natural selection were unable to explain the construction of irreducibly complex structures, does this mean that we must now infer that intelligence is required to produce such structures? And David Sloan Wilson argues: “Nature has always and correctly been regarded as a cornucopia of function.
John Morris. Creationism is religious, but no more than evolution. Because to believe in evolution, is to believe there is no God, but you believe in science. To believe that evolution is the only theory with scientific fact, is totally untrue. Not to mention that evolution breaks many scientific laws which include; the second law of thermodynamics, the law of cause and effect, and the law of biogenesis.
According to the author, most people who do not agree with Supreme Court decision in favor religion (creationists) on cases involving science and religion, believes there are lack of consistency in the rulings. They believe the court do not stand by the principle of law for their ruling. The author referred to Edwards v. Aguillard, "creationism case,” as one case of inconsistent in ruling. This case happened in 1982, where in the beginning, the law was enacted in Louisiana to allow the teaching of creation along with evolution as science subject in public schools or none of them is not allowed to be teaching in public schools. The aim of the ruling was to serve as “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction" Act.
Before the Scientific Revolution, people blindly followed the beliefs of the Church and never questioned whether or not these beliefs were true. When the Scientific Revolution occurred, people began to see the world differently and they gained the knowledge that has developed into modern society. Although some claim that the government should regulate scientific advancements because there are more advantages that come from regulation, there are actually more disadvantages than benefits. Today, embryonic stem cell research is one of the results of scientific advancements.
To convince the audience that embryonic stem cell is unethical, Marwick explains, “ that the research involves the destruction of an embryo.” And to prove that “ a child 's life is important,” he reminds the audience that an embryo is valuable and worth protecting. Marwick’s evidence also reflects his knowledge. When arguing that the research should not be funded, for example, she mentions examples, such as the restriction against funding stem lines. And when putting forward his belief that an embryo is a gift cites Walter, an expert authority on Bioethic. This evidence is very different from that of Glick who tended to cite treatment of sick people when arguing his position that the research should be
When using eugenics, it is somewhat clear that something against nature is happening. Eugenics is an unnatural process, whereas the gene given through parents’ heritage is natural. Eugenics is a scientific process of altering genes for “better” qualities. It is known that typically science and religion do not coincide with one another. Eugenics causes a big stir about whether it is playing the role of God.