Travis Kavulla:

Okay, it is in his "series of movies." That really narrows it down ;-) That it is in the accompanying book is more like it. If you will give me the page number, I will check it out.

(By the way, Travis, it you truly are correct, I will have no problem admitting it, and you have my word that I will not slink off into the night to avoid the issue. I plan to stay around this board for a while. If you are right, and can prove it, I will say so. On the other hand, if you are referring to some "figure of speech" in which Dr. Hawking may have made some vague reference to a higher entity, I might take issue with that. The quote has to be something to the effect that Dr. Hawking "recognizes that there must be a higher entity controlling our actions," or something reasonably close to that.)

Hey, what's happening?

Cloning huh. I think that it's one of the worst things us humans have come up with so far.

You are entitled to your opinion, herby70. I think the jury is out on human cloning and will be for some time. I think it should be clear by now, however, that animal cloning for medical purposes has a rich potential.

Is the censoring committee in session -- or is it just that this board no longer works?

Cliff Beall:

I was short on time at the moment. However, I believe Dr. Hawking said the statement in question at the near beginning or end of his 1st or 6th movie in the series. Also, please recognize that Dr. Hawking, in the statement I made, only believes in a "cosmic essence," whether it be a spirit type entity or simply an invisible tablet of physical laws, which he generally describes as a theory of everything. This would then procede to control every action in the cosmos either directly or indirectly.

Religion is not "only the beliefs of one person" -- that's 'faith' -- 'religion' is formalized and organized dogma supported by a very secular corporate operative; it takes a whole 'myth-mill' operating through the centuries (Mormons excepted) to write and organize it. Further, 'religious belief' does not / cannot 'tie in' with any ("other") science. It is (repeat) not a science; and the two concepts are inherently disparate. Any religious expression from any scientist reflects no more than his own frustration on being faced with the limits of his own reasoning, and an admission of his tendency to superstition. If Hawking (and Einstein) use the term 'god' as a synonym, or 'encode', for the 'unknown' (and/or 'unknowable'), or, more precisely, as a demarcation symbol for the extent of their personal knowledge or realization of reality, that's merely conversational convenience (as Einstein later explained). It is the formalization and incorporation into secular venues ('churches') of such superstition that is the bane of rationality.

Attempting to present 'religion' or 'faith' in a more intellectually 'presentable' light by use of such 'technical-eze' terminology has no more real effect than gilding 'doggie-doo' -- just as the cover does not make the book. And if you think that your 'god' spends his(?) time personally navigating the atoms, planets, stars, and galaxies of this universe through their respective courses, your concept of (a) 'god' is little more than pedestrian.

P.S. Anybody h

bob faulkner:

You are obviously misinformed about my postings. In a previous one, I mentioned that god controlled everything by making a few large actions (the Big Bang) which control the smaller ones. Therefore, the cosmic essence, as I describe god as, controls everything indirectly.

Also, I believe a person's religion is unique for one another, and when I use it, I do not mean religion as in perhaps Catholicism, but just one persons own beliefs.

To any who might be participating in, or simply following, this pot-boil: my earlier posting re "the censoring committee" or whether or not this board "no longer works" was prompted from earlier, unsuccessful attempts to post my latest missive/missile. And this explanation should stand as a firm 'object lesson' to any of you similarly inclined renegades who would dare profane this board with expressions in the vernacular. However, as there are more than "one way to skin a cat", take heart in knowing that you can get the idea across in 'politic' language -- e.g., write "doggie-doo" instead of the (arguably) more flagrant popular expression, and your timeless words, worthy (for sure) as any of those of any bard, will fairly zip past the (probably automatic) word censor.

To the powers that be -- surely as potent, eminent, and reverend as any tribunal assembled to protect the public virtue (and even the coral-pink ears, or sky-blue eyes, of the great un-washed), I do humbly (if you care to believe it) offer my mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa (you got to say/write it three (3) times, or it's no good).

I am not "misinformed" about your postings, as I read them directly -- however, I readily admit that I might misunderstand your points. Your recent response to Cliff Beall served well to clarify your earlier statements re Hawking and 'god' -- seems to be all a matter of terminology, and what you really mean.

However, I do not accept that 'religion' can be unique to any one person -- that concept is 'belief' -- 'religion' is, inherently, a shared system of belief(s).

With such diverse opinions on the definitions of terms, these chit-chats can go on interminably.

Bob Faulkner:

Perhaps you are correct, but certainly every person involved with the same religion, undoubtedly have different beliefs, somewhat like a snowflake. Whatever the word used, I would now hope that you understand what I'm getting at.

Long time getting to this one! Had to fight my way past the word-police and (if you'll pardon the admitted profanity towards one of the greatest pioneers of science) finally had to make peace with the reverend powers and (in specific), as Galileo, recant, at least, a portion of an earlier posting.

I have little, if any, contention with 'Catholics' (the laity) of today, who know little, if anything, of the history of their 'Church' -- they are merely, as always, pawns in the game of power and are deserving of pity.

My contention is with any organized claim to "certain" or exclusive knowledge -- they are frauds, every one. As to power, the 'Church' has never conceded anything -- it has only lost ground (and waits for opportunity) in a still pitched battle -- and still tries to maintain the position of exclusive 'Vicar of Christ'. My concern is with public vigilance against any proclamation of "certain" knowledge and "privileged" thought -- any who claim it are frauds, and no society worthy of the name can afford to harbor the concept of 'heresy'.

As to what does and does not "make sense", you are not the arbiter of that.

Suffice it to say that I am beginning to start to commence to be of the opinion that I think that I do -- but I'm probably mistaken, on that, at least.

On cloning (ta d-a-a-h):

A (very) recent (I can't find it now) article on CNN Interactive (bold for the bold) detailed the work of a medical researcher who advances the idea of growing (presumably cloned) body parts in situ.

According to the article (as I understand it), the concept (apparently already in early laboratory development) is based on cloning and genetically manipulating a patient's own body cells to grow in/onto a 'matrix' in his own body, which then results in a completely new, healthy, rejection-proof organ, as determined by the designed 'matrix' (I suspect this 'matrix' is more physiological than physical -- but then, what do I know).

Of course, nobody's 'god' gave/gives us the 'right' to do this sort of 'black magic' -- wonder what 'snake' might have whispered such arcane knowledge into the ear of that presumptuous researcher!?!

I expect his 'heresy' will soon come under intense attack by such as Jesse Helms (who, usually, is concerned with little more than protecting the 'rights' of his constituents to grow (genetically enhanced) poison (carcinogenic) plants -- have you compared modern tobacco leaves with the historical ones? sacre bleu, are they b-i-g! (more money!).

A popular expression (amongst some) is:

Unfortunately, the ones most likely to find themselves in 'foxholes' are the very uneducated, under-privileged, and superstition-ridden and controlled 'proles' (an exquisite Greek word that really says it all -- our modern term 'proletariat' derives from it; it means those who have little more than their bodies (like, as cannon fodder) to contribute to the common weal).

How many (do you think) of those eager to decry medical research into such as cloning would pass up the opportunity to replace their old diseased heart (or liver, or whatever) with a brand-new one (when the ti

...me comes, that is; i.e., when Death's cold eye is upon them).

Religious belief does not / cannot 'tie in' with any ("other") science. It is (repeat) not a science; and the two concepts are inherently disparate. Any religious expression from any scientist reflects no more than his own frustration on being faced with the limits of his own reasoning, and an admission of his tendency to superstition. If Hawking (and Einstein) use the term 'god' as a synonym, or 'encode', for the 'unknown' (and/or 'unknowable'), or, more precisely, as a demarcation symbol for the extent of their personal knowledge or realization of reality, that's merely conversational convenience (as Einstein later explained). It is the formalization and incorporation into secular venues ('churches') of such superstition that is the bane of rationality.

Attempting to present 'religion' or 'faith' in a more intellectually 'presentable' light by use of such 'technical-eze' terminology has no more real effect than gilding a dog turd -- just as the cover does not make the book. And if you think that your 'god' spends his(?) time personally navigating the atoms, planets, stars, and galaxies of this universe through their respective courses, your concept of (a) 'god' is little more than pedestrian.

P.S. Anybody hear/read anything about 'cloning'?

(Wonder if it's too early to 'sign-up'!)

Of course, on further consideration, there is a 'down-side' to such medical advances as cited --

Consider the likes of Jesse Helms (bet most of his constituents pronounce it 'Hehms'), protecting his poison plants, while dissembling as the protector of public eyes and ears from 'profane' accostment (I just made up that word -- but it sounds good to me, makes sense; and if Milton could get away with it, why not me);

Or Robert Byrd, plundering the public pocket to build highways to nowhere in a State where nobody wants to go (the only thing good I'm aware of coming out of West Virginia was Eleanor Steber, and she's gone, alas!).

To digress (what?!? are you mad!?!) --

If you really want to reform the Senate, forget about 'limited terms' -- the shallow political operators re-elected only reflect the dupes who put them there -- what is needed is the abolition of 'seniority'; to dull the talons of such as Helms and Byrd (isn't that glistening white hair inspiring). Someone (a fellow 'solon') said of Daniel Webster that he was 'a living lie', since no man could possible be as noble as he naturally looked -- so much for appearances.

Had to 'sign-in' again to post this! What a drag!

Travis Kavulla

On re-reading this one, simply (shamelessly) could not resist responding further: I would agree completely if you would excise the "snow" from "snowflake".

It works fine for me ;-)

Travis, that is not even vaguely similar to your earlier statement. Your earlier statement said that Dr. Hawking "does not fail to recognize that there must be a higher entity controlling our actions." I think I must take issue, as I said I would--if what you were referring to turned out to be only a vague reference by Dr. Hawking to a higher entity. Heck, it isn't even that if it is understood that Dr. Hawking was referring to a "cosmic essence" that can be understood as "an invisible tablet of physical laws." I think you misrepresented what Dr. Hawking said.

It is my understanding that while Einstein did not believe, necessarily, in the existence of any God, and very specifically rejected the idea of a "personal God," he appeared to accept the possibility of a universal entity which might be referred to as "God." I have had the sense that Hawking is more an atheist, and less an agnostic, than Einstein.

I have review your posts, Travis, but I fail to see where you said the above. In one post, you did refer to a "cosmic essence" which Hawking described as a "theory of everything," and you then said, "This would then procede to control every action in the cosmos either directly or indirectly." If this is what you are referring to, it is not quite the same.

I suspected as much.

I doubt that they would want your pity. Most are quite intelligent and do not consider themselves as pawns in the game of power. In the main, while I am personally an agnostic, I think that the Catholic church is generally a force for good. The recent trip by the Pope to Castro's Cuba is an illustration of the "good" the church represents in today's world. Perhaps the Church was a threat to freedom three hundred years ago. It is not today. It is not the Catholic church that has enslaved the people of Cuba for the past forty some years.

Let me rephrase: To suggest that Catholics, today, share the guilt for crimes committed by Church people three hundred years ago is absurd and ridiculous. (How's that? ;-)

I think that if anybody has an objection to a medical procedure such as you describe, they should be allowed to voice the objection. This is called freedom of speech. My question is: why presuppose an objection before it is made. You might be surprised.

No. Just your ranting :o)

On the issue of religion, I consider any belief system where the individual is not assummed to be a morally sovereign entity to be an assault on individual liberty. We are all free entitys and the only legitement function of any form of monopoly-authoritarian entity, whether it be a god or a government, is to arbitrate disputes between free individuals such as ourselves. Anything stronger than this is imcompatible with the concept of liberty.

Whatever personal limitations that I may have has never created the need within me to believe in an external source (as defined by religion). Rather, it only reinforces my desire to have the ACCESS TO TOOLS (biotech, nanotech, etc.) that will enable me to overcome any limitations that I may have. I would never submit my dreams and goals to anything outside myself. This is essential liberty.

Those who would give up essential liberty for a transient security deserve neither.

Kurt Schoedel

And how would you characterize your own 'pap', Oh Guru wannabe? Message boards are patently nothing more than platforms for rants -- that's the fun of them. And if you think you've got it in you to save the world, I would opine you're spouting in the wrong venue, Smiley ;^o

"Quite intelligent" are they? Does that imply that they, as a class, skew out from the normal 'bell' distribution curve? I would expect that the intelligence of Catholics, like that of all the rest of the human herd, runs from stupid to brilliant (with the great majority in the simply dull-normal). But susceptibility to superstition is an emotional flaw and does not (necessarily) reflect the intelligence of the sufferer. Further, I would opine it is in the nature of pawns not to consider themselves so.

But only for those who meet your criteria? Are they not merely 'ranting'? I see in your posts not a Socratic 'gadfly', but an opportunistic canine biting at the conveniently exposed heels of any actually in the fray

Just as pretentious, Smiley! And no more acceptable in an arena of (social) peers. You are also not the arbiter of what is "absurd and ridiculous" -- but you might turn your ridicule to your own 'holier than thou' attitude which well suits your 'pap'.

And the 'Church' IS the "Church people" -- it is no 'holy' abstraction created "on this rock" by some mythical figure two thousand years ago. It is a temporal, political power which will crush (given the power and opportunity) any opponents. And the slaughter of the Albigensians (just one of many such murders) occurred in the 13th century, not "three hundred years ago".

You may (of course) think what you will of the Catholic Church -- I cite (a small part of) their bloody record (which extends back far more than three centuries), not their pretenses to 'holiness'. Didn't old John Paul look silly kneeling before (adoring) that fake icon -- his 14th century predecessors had the worldly savvy to call it what it is. His action shows the current desperation of the 'Church' to follow, rather than lead, its 'members' through the morass of superstition. Anything to protect and (hopefully) project its temporal power.

For the same reason I "presuppose" a glowing stove top to burn whatever touches it. If the objections were not already being raised (and they are) this message board would have even less purpose (not that it really needs one -- nothing like a good rant, as is evidenced by the popularity of such as Dennis Miller, Bill Maher, (the late) Mort Sahl, et al).

Please define the difference between alive and dead.

Conflicting viewpoints is inherently a necessity in the real world as was proven by Godel.

Fittest is defined in terms of the environment. When Darwin said, "Survival of the fittest," he was saying a lot and very little at the same time.

Yeah, and the N-d stuff is kindergarten material compared to some of the other stuff (ie action-at-a-distance, the paradigm of 'process' to explain the universe, ...)

I like this balanced duality.

Funny you should say this. I've seen studies on separated twins that lead to the conclusion that the basics personality is inherited, not learned.

Actually, co

Actually, complex, "random" systems tend towards order, organisation, and evolution. It's been shown in chemical experiments and computer simulations. Perhaps you could argue that 'God' created the universe in this manner. I say it doesn't really matter; the universe exists no matter how it was created.

Yeah, we all know God placed all those bones in the ground just for decoration.

This is what they've said about technologies in general. Although I must admit that it's made my life better, I tend to think that it's worsened the problems in the third world. You can argue that their problems are caused by socio-political reasons, but the still problems exist regardless of the technologies introduced.

As for genetic predisposition towards happiness, I have seen a study pointing to this fact. In order for the world to function, though, we need to maintain a balance. If everyone were happy, noone would realize or fix any problems. Why not just spread brain candy around?

You make it sound like evolution has a direction. Like I said before, 'fittest' is defined in context. Humans (who a supposedly 'better' than other species) wouldn't fare too well when Earth was dominated by blue-green algae.

Religion is an inherent part of our society. It cannot be ignored when discussing topics affecting society.

But 'science' itself has been incorrect (or at least not perfectly correct) a number of times. The 'knowledge' of quantum physics and relativity still have unresolved problems. Blind faith in anything can be dangerous.

Although I, and some of my friends, don't really like the Church, we have witnessed its changing attitudes. Like all complex beings, it will try to survive. It must change with the times if it is to achieve this.

Thanks, I've always wondered what the difference was.

On the same note, the educational system should teach students that, contrary to what 'science' has taught us, humans are not the supreme beings of the planet. All life is interdependent. On second thought, I think they are beginning to change their rants about this, but it's taking some time (ie (is this correct?) some people still believe in the old science).

Bob Faulkner:

I'm sorry I was not able to keep your pace of discussion. But as a rebuttal to your comment about a theory of everything not being vaguely close to a god, I disagree. If someone were to discover a theory of everything, as unlikely as that may be, wouldn't it, in some way, control all of our actions in life and draw many people to believe, or have FAITH in it, much as any religious god does. In fact, it is almost impossible to tell any difference from a "god" born out of a theory of everything from our modern day religious gods. Using this odd yet obvious comparison, it would be natural to assume what Dr. Hawking meant.

What happens when a free individual refuses to accept the arbitration decision of such a weak entity?

Liberty is not automatic. It must be secured. Weakness never secured anything. The reason you have never had to lift a finger to maintain your freedom is because it was secured for you. If the means of maintaining those secured liberties is less than perfect in your eyes, you nevertheless owe a debt of gratitude to those who make the sacrifices.

The fun for me is civil discourse. I suppose that rants can be useful to blow off steam, but they impress me not. Make a reasoned civil argument for which I can find no weakness--particularly an argument that forces me to reexamine my own thoughts on the matter, and I will admire your skill greatly. I think it takes not much skill to insult.

This certainly appears to be true, although I do not know why. As I mentioned earlier, I was raised in a Christian home, and there was a time when I did believe in God, but there never was a time that I really thought myself to be a Christian. What I heard and what I felt were two distinctly different things. It is actually hard for me to even imagine belief in God. But to be aware that most people do so believe requires only a look around.

Funny thing. I too really do not much like the Church. And yet, I find myself defending it from time to time on this board. I guess it has to do with what I consider to be fair. I know of no other reason for it.

Cliff Beale: I, too, am not usually a fan of the church (I use this term loosely to encompass all major organized religions in this country, but but mainly focussed on the mainstrean Judeo-Christian groups). I find that the church edicts and decrees tend to often follow hypocratic or contradictory philosphies and oten seek to use moral influence to force their ideas onto others. On the other hand, organized religion usually promotes family, basic human ethics, and belief that a persons actions should concern more than him/herself. So, I also, despite my usual eschewment of the church, I sometimes take that side of debates

Noel Yap

What 'science' is that? And, what is "the old science"? None that I know. Or do you refer to those frauds who would 'interpret' science to further their own agendas? The number of ill-informed and/or duplicitous 'spokes-persons' for science is always excessive. See Jay Gould's special article to the Washington Post about bacteria beating all others out by dint of number and volume alone.

Travis Kavulla

Soon as that 'someone' demonstrated the theory there would be no need to have "FAITH" in it -- that's the whole point, which you seem to resist seeing or accepting: science is predicated on what is demonstrably knowable; FAITH is predicated on what cannot be demonstrated and (presumably, except to the 'initiated few') unknowable.

I agree, but keep in mind that theology and religion are two different concepts.

Your faith in science is strong.

We're still around.

But then, wouldn't society just redefine 'damage'? If Hitler had won, the populace would be praising his efforts.

Primarily 'cos Science doesn't concern itself with humanity -- it seeks only truth (at whatever cost).

Rather than fear this, I welcome it. It's high time we disposed of our biased views on what life is.

This assumption is akin to Christians believing they believe in the one true God and everyone else is wrong.

I agree with this definition.

I completely agree. Furthermore, other societies may prefer other means towards knowledge (and will possibly even disagree on what 'knowledge' is).

Matthew F. Heil: 2. All social institutions evolve. Even the Church. Human beings in the Church have made serious errors in the past, however, that does not mean that everything the institution of the Church has to say is worthless. It would be ashame to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think the Church's counsel of caution, and concern for life are at least worthy of consideration.

I completely agree with this, too.

Ahhh, my favorite hero.

You say it much more eloquently than I ever could.

I agree. It's not religion that's killed millions since the beginning of time, it's intolerance.

The Church itself has spoken out against itself regarding past actions -- it has changed.

From CNN Community Staff:

If these guidelines are not met, we will have to delete your posts. Please take a moment to review yours and see that they are within the guidelines.

Thank you,

-Staff

Human and animal cloning ... cloning ... cloning

Yes-sah, boss! I'm really into this cloning stuff!

Wondered if you really read this stuff -- and how long you'd let this pot (over)boil. Just for grins, I 'back'ed till I found a legitimate post re cloning (one that more than just 'shmoosed' the word by). Check #4408 boss -- it's mine! And I arrived at this demonstrable fact a posteriori -- by observing the facts!

I sincerely hope Venter can side-step the bureaucrats, some of whom -- according to the article -- are already characterizing him as the 'enemy'. (Up the public -- what about our jobs! Yeah!!!)

What an excellent opportunity for the private sector to demonstrate that they can genetically manipulate something other than poison plants. The formalization of the Human Genome will not only open up every variation of cloning, it will be like a recipe book for stirring up every 'goodie' imaginable for human health and well-being. For, after mastering the Human Genome, the experience and knowledge gained will make 'duck soup' of delineating all the rest.

Good night, all; and thanks to the CNN Community Staff for dumping this most odiously cloned pot of offal!

Craig Venter is my kind of guy. I have admired that guy since the Discover article. Outcast or not, radical or not, I think he knows what he is doing, and I think he can deliver. Furthermore, I think he means it when he says: "We're using private money to sequence the human genome. We're going to publish that information, give it to the public for free. We will guarantee that the human genome is not patentable because the information will be public."

I personally think this last is the ax that most of his critics have to grind. They each want their little piece of the project, on which they can obtain a patent. Well, guess what, Venter is going to sequence it first and publish it to the public domain. I say more power to him. Like I said, Craig Venter is my kind of guy.

That is the truth.

Ref. Cliff Beall - (#4434 of 4434)

Well he will give the raw data away at least.

Cliff, I never cease to be amazed by you. Most of the time you seem to be so "middle of the road" I agree with you, but I didn't think you would have come out so positive towards his approach.

I like the Idea because it uses a probabilistic approach and a form of cryptology to reassemble the slices. Since complexity and information theory is something I have some expertise in natch. it appeals to me.

The new machines are apparently much faster and I wonder how much improvement there would be just using the strait serial method and weather his method really justifies the additional computational effort.

If we are going to do serious cloning this means desequencing the DNA for all known forms of life.

If this operational efficiency doubles per dollar every 18 months like computing has done all forms of life could be Gen. Banked in maybe 50 years. (Would you believe 100)

I wonder how much of the total existent natural life code is redundant? I would hazard a guess of 99.99% or more.

Cliff, BTW I did a search on Restriction Enzymes and found a lot of very interesting Gen. Eng. and cloning sites.

I thing I'm beginning to see just the tip of how complex the Human Genome project really is.

Carl, I like anything that works. I have absolutely no expertise in what you refer to as "complexity and information theory," but if something works, I don't have to understand it. Venter must be doing something right. According to the May Discover article, he was the second most cited biologist in the world last year. (The most cited biologist works for him.) In other words, a goodly number of people (his peers) who ought to know, have respect for his methods. That says something to me.

Besides, I am against the patenting of the human genome. I don't care what they say, I don't believe that publishing the human genome to the public domain will slow research. (They say it will slow research on the basis that drug companies can't get rights). My attitude is that if the drug companies do something, invent something, they can have the rights to their invention. I don't think they need to have commercial rights to the gene sequences, themselves. With the human genome freely available to anyone and everyone who can make something of it, I am of the opinion that research will increase significantly, perhaps in ways that we can not imagine. Like I said, Craig Venter is my kind of guy.

I'd be interested to hear your reaction relative to his quote that

Myself and I beleive Tom would agree.

The dude is radical thats for sure.

It is here, Let it grow. The world is changing. If we the US try to hold it back and do not participate we will be left behind in the waste as the world moves by us.

I have no problem with the statement in context. I like the prior paragraph better, however, in which Dr. Venter said: "First, I think the worst thing for science and society is to leave the, quote, ethical issues up to the professional ethicist..."

I agree completely that science and society should not leave the ethical issues to the "professional" ethicist. I am also opposed to leaving it only to the scientists or to any other interested group--or to you or Tom. I believe that scientists, as well as professional ethicists and all other members of society, including soulless atheists and religious nuts should participate. Why exclude anyone from the debate?

There have to be millions of bacteria that haven't been looked at yet or they have been sequenced but the code has not been correlated to other forms of life. Since the big boys will be looking at human diseases and animal drug production, this leaves a lot of space for other types of research. e.g. In Russia there is the largest seed bank in the world every 20 or so years they have to plant some so that the stock remains fresh.

Just like the volunteers in Project Gutenberg are rendering books whose copyright has expired into e-texts, and distributed to the world free on the Internet, we could do the same with the genetic information of obscure plants. People like Tom and I have thousands of cpu hours of computers doing null tasks that could be used to reassemble DNA pieces.

The bad news for me is that the "shotgun" approach that Craig Venter is using can not do introns, which is one area I am interested in.

bob,

Equal talent, yes; whatever your genetic situation, save a very very few, you can certainly develop the same abilities as anyone else. Artisitic ability is one of the most common examples of those who would say otherwise, but with a little practice, anyone can become quite adept, though best as a child.

Equal intelligence, nearly; except for the mentally retarded, everyone has the roughly same ability to memorize information. The reason some people cannot seem to pick up a subject is because they do not have an adequate basis. If you're trying to learn calculus, but can't quite master algebra, you're going to seem pretty stupid. This starts when you're a child and is cumulative. Frustration then tends to influence how you feel about that topic.

Equal physical prowess, sort of; if you mean body type, then no, but otherwise yes. Someone who is six-foot-six is more likely to play basketball because they will have an advantage, but that does not necessarily mean they will be better given the same amount of practice as someone who is shorter. For instance, there are NBA players who are under six foot and there are millions of people who are over six foot but can't play well at all. The potential exists for anyone to develop those abilities -- some do, some don't. It all depends upon thier experiences.

MikAngelos,

Cliff,

Conflicts? How? I was very careful to be as unbiased and factual as possible. Those other FAQs you list do cover most of the topics we discuss here, and that is why I created a FAQ specifically for our group. However, it does not factually conflict with either of them. It was found authoritative enough for the CNN Moderator to post a link to it at the top of the page, so if you have something to contend, then speak up. If your point is valid, I will change it as necessary. Otherwise, I don't see why you shouldn't support it.

Cliff, you are still not quite understanding, and I don't think you are even trying to. "That the subject of the argument is 'The discovery that it is possible to clone adult animals.'" is what is unarguable, because that is the subject of the argument. Of course the argument is arguable, just not what the subject is. You can debate whether the discovery has been made or not, and we have debated that; I simply asked you not to debate it again when all I was doing was pointing out what the discovery was that we've been debating. Do you get it now?

He is lying. He is either not a scientist or not a christian, no matter what he tells you. Since he claims to be a christian, that automatically eliminates the possibility that he is also a scientist. He may have learned a lot of scientific facts, and he may do research, but he is still not a scientist.

Steve,

In the eyes of some people, ethical and moral discussions have a lot to do with god and christianity. I like to try to debunk that idea, but it often creeps into the conversation anyway.

Last time I checked, the topic covered the legal and political stances toward cloning, and whether those stances are justified. The "should" question was also there, but the patent rights and property thing was never really a topic here -- certainly not an official one.

So long as that is a trend among the entire population, I think the term human will still apply to everyone, though the scientific species name homo sapien sapien will no longer apply if the new people are unable to reproduce with the current population. Even so, which ever group is in the majority, I'm sure everyone will still be considered human.

Carl Nicolai,

Good advice.

Steve,

What does this have to do with cloning? It's not an issue now, so how is it different with a cloned child?

Cliff,

As far as I'm concerned, that is already closed. I have put forth my argument and nobody has come even close to any kind of refutation. If you please to do so, I await your argument. To refresh your memory, my position is as follows.

Since cloning does not affect anyone, even indirectly, except the parent and child, the cloning of a person is not unethical just as procreation in any other fashion is not unethical.

However, a failure to come to someone's aid when it is within your capability to do so is unethical, so banning potentially lifesaving medical research is what is unethical. In addition, the attempt of some people to ban cloning without logical cause is in fact reducing the freedom of those who would pursue the subject, and thus unethical.

Noel,

Oh? What part is that?

No, it lies within illogic. Pointing out the illogic is a simple way to disprove the existance.

If my cells were conscious individuals, it would be Nazi Germany. But yours was a poor analogy. Human civilization is not a harmonious colony of drones sharing a single consciousness. Each one of us has rights which cannot be discarded by the will of the whole. You are apologizing for the Salem witch trials.

Steve,

You are assuming that everyone values the same qualities.

No, cloning is about reproduction, not about photocopying.

Glenda,

Steve,

Patents extend only so far as the company is that holds it is the only one permitted to make money from the procedure. For instance, Genetics, Inc., patents a certain procedure for cloning. They are permitted to perform that procedure for a fee; but, unless licenced by Genetics, Inc., no other company may perform that procedure for a fee. There is never any ownership of human beings, nor even the restriction of others performing the procedure.

bob,

Excellent. Well said.

Bravo! Another superb post.

Matthew,

It is preferable because it is the *only* way to gain knowledge. Well, I should qualify that as new knowledge, since authoritative methods are valid, but only when the authority has used science in the first place.

The only assumption made by science is that the observer is in fact observing reality. But this assumption proves itself -- otherwise all structure and coherentness would be impossible, and there would not be any correlation between the testimonies of different observers. That is one reason all scientific experiments are made repeatable. Thus, there are no current assumptions made in the practice of science.

Science does not uncover "certain knowledge", as you call it, but it reveals "reliable knowledge" in that it has been sufficiently tested without failure. When starting from a position of absolute ignorance, as we all necessarily do, nothing is ever "certain" since one instance of a violation of that certainty turns everything on its head. However, we can be quite sure that such a thing will not occur if knowledge is gained scientifically, because it is then reliable. And the reliability increases asymptotically toward certainty with repeated testing. Since the default scientific position is one of doubt, if there is an error, it will likely be uncovered.

Cliff,

Please qualify that statement.

Actually, our society was built on the fact that people had total intolerance of others different from themselves. We needed to structure our political/legal system in such a way as to minimize intolerance. We are just finally starting to see genuine effects from this.

Travis,

You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about, do you?

Way, way, out of context. Just as bad as saying that Einstein believed in a god. Hawking has been strictly agnostic in his presentations, neither proposing nor denying the possibility of anything but that with which he can objectively form an opinion through the science at his disposal. A nondismissal is not the same as an endorsement.

Noel,

Ahh, that is the question, is it not? By common thinking, a chemical process (such as fire, or dna reproduction) is not a living process, even if it meets all of the requirements for such a designation. However, every biological process (micro or macro) is accurately described as nothing more than a chemical reaction. Life cannot be defined by any precise line, but must take many factors into consideration, and this is often done subconsciously to arrive at an opinion of what is alive and what is not. I believe that the convention is that something is alive if it can later be dead, and something is dead if it was once alive. This may be something of a paradox, but unless I'm mistaken, you got the gist of my original post by those aforementioned subconscious means. I will, of course, bring it to your attention if further consideration of this problem yields any kind of concrete solution.

I balance this dual likality.

Science does not teach, it is a method with which to teach yourself. And there is no bias in the scientific method nor in scientific convention that man is supreme. That has always been the proclamation of Christianity and other homocentric religions.

Travis,

To you perhaps, but there is a very real difference. Knowledge gained through scientific inquiry is reliably true whereas myth is simply aprioritous.

Cliff,

Liberty is automatic; however, it need be guarded.

That is an ironic statment coming from you, Cliff. No matter how many times I utterly stump you, you still claim I have prooved nothing. I win an argument, and you go on thinking exactly as you did before, only avoiding that topic until you somehow think that I had forgotten it. You are so set in your particular way of thinking that you do not even examine the words closely enough to determine what the argument is about, but instead go off on your shpeal about what you think the argument is about, even while I try to tell you that that is not the argument.

Noel,

This is a common mistake that I just do not understand why people make. They just do not get it that science and faith are opposites.

And it seems that you don't get it either, even after you just explained it to Travis. What gives?

Science has no concerns nor does it seek anything. Science is a method, that's all.

So long as knowledge is defined as the body of things which are known to be true, then science is the only means toward attaining it.

And here you just defined the difference so well! How can you contradict yourself so?

Yeah, but the Church has been the primary practitioner of intolerance; it took full advantage of it, institutionalized it and kept it healthy for 2000 years. Christianity may not have originated lying and deceit, but they have been the principal users of the technique for 2000 years. Christianity may not have invented murder, but name me an institution that has used it more thoroughly. If it's not the shooter, but the gun, that kills, then why do we sentence people for the crime? Religion should get capital punishment.

Carl,

The way to go would be to use distributed computing on the scale of the entire internet. That would equal a supercomputer millions of times more powerful than the most powerful supercomputer in existance.

Largely, yes. I think that the professional ethicists (not religionists) and the scientists doing the work ought to have a long discussion to voice concerns to each other and to educate each other in possibilities and necessities. Ethicists know little of the biological implications and biologists know little of the ethical implications. They must work together to determine exactly what is ethical. People uneducated in either field ought to have little or no say at all, for their opinion is meaningless and misguided.

Looks like we were on the same wavelength.

Thank you for the earlier two compliments (in #4448) --

and

But, in this one, you mis-attributed another (excellent and well-said) post of mine

to none other than Noel Yap (who could not possibly have written it).

For further reference (should the (unlikely) need arise) you may assume that anything which supports 'religion' or 'faith', or suggests that 'faith' and science can (somehow) mix or complement each other, did not originate with me.

If 'religion' is capable of anything practical, it is in recognition of its enemies. And, in science, it rightly identifies its arch-nemesis -- in spite of the well-intentioned, but foolish, efforts of some scientists to seek some sort of conciliation with what is basically systems of ignorance and lies. To assume that any 'religionist' is innocently ignorant is foolish; 'religion' is populated with the crassly ignorant: those who so enjoy self-delusion they will not accept reality. This, of course, applies to the militant (if not rabid) arguers -- the majority of the herd are merely dupes (groupies) who need to 'belong' to something (anything).

I see that no one has yet commented on the latest cloning of two calves from adult cells by the Japanese. Doesn't much matter what the FDA does, does it? No scientific details or peer reviewed publication seem to be available yet, but given all of the criticism of the Dolly cloning, I suspect that this group can prove they have done what they claim. I wonder if the failure of the royal Japanese couple to produce an heir has stimulated the Japanese interest in cloning? Cloning would be one way to have the emperor's genes around forever!

I agree with Cliff beal that the Human Genome should be public domain. Most people don't see the difference between process patents and patent on a chemical, which is what a gene is.

Chemical patents killed the British chemical industry in the nineteenth century. A new process to make a chemical held no advantage since the patenter of the chemical, no matter how inefficient the process he used to develope it. The incentive to develope new processes was gone. In Germany they had process patents, but no patents on a chemical and their indutry thrived.

The drug companies want the substance patents because they want to stifle innovation so they can reap windfall profits on their genetic monopolies. I say if generic drug companies can make a substance cheaper through another process let them make any gene in the genome. This will accelerate progress.

Please don't kill the genetics industry with patent and intelectual property monopolies the way Microsoft has killed innovation in the software industry.

The article dosent say much about abnormalities but if they get 10 healthy clones I guess Cliff will have to rethink his position on human cloning.

The article doesn't say much about abnormalities but if they get 10 healthy clones I guess Cliff will have to rethink his position on human cloning.

I sure hope the FDA stays out of this field. It looks like the US is going to have some stiff competition as it is.

If the Emperor does reproduce by cloning I can imagine a super fad developing. It seems though a very weird situation could develop if He is sterile because of an unknown genetic defect. Then his clone would be also.

I understand no one has produced a female clone by duplicating the X chromosome and eliminating the Y.

bob,

I'm so very sorry. Now it all makes sense. For some reason, I was certain that it was in Noel's post, and that he was later inconsistent, but now it is clear he was mistaken all along and yet another great post belonged to you.

(Just to repeat it)

What is there to say? I told you so, Cliff?

Did you clone this sentence on purpose? :o)

Tom, would you call this a demonstrated fact, or an opinion based on an assumption?

In your opinion, Tom, is this a demonstrated fact or an opinion based on an assumption?

I suggest you read the science portion of the "Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission." For the reasons given, it is suspected that mice are likely to be even more difficult to clone than humans. You didn't know that?

What are you talking about? What "genuine effects"?

Automatic huh? Ask a person born in Cuba any time during the last forty years.

Could be. Reading the report, I got the impression that the Japanese procedure must be much more advanced than the procedures used by UK and USA scientists. The article said that all five cows got pregnant. This one delivered early, but the others are still expected to drop calves within the next month and a few days? Sound like a complete success. We shall see.

(Sorry out of sequence repost due to errors)

The article doesn't say much about abnormalities but if they get 10 healthy clones I guess Cliff will have to rethink his position on human cloning.

I sure hope the FDA stays out of this field. It looks like the US is going to have some stiff competition as it is.

If the Emperor does reproduce by cloning I can imagine a super fad developing. It seems though a very weird situation could develop. If he is sterile because of an unknown genetic defect, then his clone might be sterile also.

I understand no one has produced a female clone by duplicating the X chromosome and eliminating the Y.

It seems like about one skydrillion years ago we had the discussion about weather science is in fact becoming a religion.

If we can show that it is becoming, or is in fact now a religion it seems logical that it will displace other ones.

One way to define a religion is that it contains at least one article of faith and is the most powerful motivater of the believers.

To be effective it has to have fanatics whose ideas and actions go clearly beyond logic.

It should have titles of special importance to understanding everything.

Most people should be able to practice it and receive solace from the practice.

It should have new words to redefine old human problems.

Tom Anderson: The last time I looked Patents, Ownership and Intellectual Property were all part of the law. Because of this patents taken out on procedures on cloning and gentic structures created by companies (like Genetics Inc) fully falls under this topic.

Whether a company that takes out a patent on a procedure or a specific chain of DNA that they have created in their lab to form a "unique" organism, animal, or plant fully owns that structure and exactly how far does that patent extend was my point. If another company forms a unique organism that just happens to contain the same genetic chain as one that is patented, is the a basis for legal action?

Tom: The point I was trying to make about cloned children vs. natural is more with manipulating the DNA of the child. If you're going to clone a person anyway, what's to stop you from altering it bit to make it "better". That's all. I know this is more along the lines of genetic manipulation than cloning (which is just making a copy), but once you start one the other would just seem to follow.

This 'thank you' business is going to start grating on my natural proclivity to misanthropy -- but, I guess convention demands that I show some degree of 'politeness', ... so, thank you, again, for such kind (and fitting) words. (I was briefly tempted to append a 'smiley' to that line of bull, but decided not to risk being mistaken for another wind-bag who favors such 'cuteness').

To me, the principal significance of cloning (whether (not weather ) human or animal) is not that it be done; but that it can be done. It is just another step towards unraveling more of Nature's secrets (not 'mysteries'), and relegating 'mysteries' to their proper realm: the mindless waste-land of 'religion'.

As for all the shreiking Cassandras who would keep American science out of such truly heroic endeavors and accomplishments, the latest news about the Japanese success in cloning is a firm object lesson which clearly shows where such proscription would lead -- American science would be relegated to the parochial back-waters enjoyed by all such keepers of "certain knowledge".

Anyone who is alive today because of modern medical knowledge or treatment -- or who has watched a loved one die prematurely because of the lack of appropriate knowledge or treatment -- should simply accept that, at least as far as knowledge goes, more is always better.

If there's anything specific this world doesn't need it's more words defining 'religion'; and "weather science" is what might define meteorology.

Yeah, supposing 10 healthy clones and no abnormalities, I guess I would, although it is not likely that my rethinking will have much of a consequence with respect to anything or anyone important either way, anyway. I am sure it will not be earth shaking. But, yeah, I will do as I said I would.

Why worry about the FDA? If the CNN article is to be believed, the good technology is in Japan, anyway. Actually, I am not too surprised that it might be so. People will go after the good technology, wherever it is. Supposing the technology is readily transferable to humans, the technology being in Japan instead of the USA will not slow progress one iota. I can see people from USA traveling to Japan to have it done. And I have no problem with that.

Cliff,

Fact: scientist and christian are mutually exclusive. Bob explained it quite well just a few posts back. Go ahead and read it.

Fact: there are no assumptions made when collecting scientific data in a valid scientific experiment. Drawing conclusions from that data may or may not involve assumptions, and those assumptions must be qualified as being proven in one or more other scientific experiments.

Please summerize what makes people more difficult to clone than sheep. Or at least one point.

Abolition of slavery, equal rights for men and women of all origins, and a sincerely nonracist and nonsexist and religiously tolerant growing majority of the population.

At birth, every one of those Cubans was free. That liberty was, however, quickly taken away because it was not guarded by the child or its parents.

Carl,

Science and religion are mutually exclusive. Science is not a religion! Religion is a system of fixing belief which is based on aprioricity. Science is a system of fixing belief which is based on the precise opposite of aprioricity.

Steve,

Yes, it does. I was simply pointing out that it had never been a part of the discussion before.

Only if they attempt to market that organism or the process.

First of all, it would not be cloning anymore. Second of all, why not make it better?

bob,

Right. Just as more options are always better when it is necessary to make a choice. Greater knowledge opens more options (or closes those that would have been bad choices). The choices we make is what is important.

eeewwww who would want to clone animals

a-a-a-e-e-i-o-o-u-u-u who would want a b-r-a-i-n

Why on earth would someone want to clone themselves? I wouldn't want another me...if you clone a person, would you get a baby or an adult? If a baby, just raising the child in today's environment would get a different adult. What good would that do someone?

Hallo...Nice day, huh?

If (when) they ban human cloning, then shouldn't they ban in-vitro fertilization? I mean, is there really that much of a difference? I don't think so; it is, afterall, the same concept.

And the point Mildred (can I call you Millie?) brings up is interesting. Right now the latest genetic research indicates that personality is about 90% nature (genetics) and about 10% nurture (environment/up-bringing). If we cloned humans, we would indeed know for sure.

Satyakama

Tom,

Patents, Intellectual property were and ownership part of this discussion about 50-60 posts back, but were abandoned in favor of a discussion on religion.

Of course making things better would not be cloning anymore. The point is that genetic manipulation comes along with (or shortly after) cloning is perfected.

It's just another one of those emergent behaviours sprouting out of complex systems.

I think something like GNU's copylefting would be needed. For people not familiar with it, copylefting is to copyright to prevent another to. The copylefter then provides the item freely to the public. The public can then copy/modify/distribute the item so long as the copyleft notice isn't changed or deleted.

Just look at the growth of Linux and other free software (and I mean including source code). Any hacker can make changes. The bottleneck occurs when the changes are controlled to help prevent breaking the product.

How can you claim they are mutually exclusive and simultaneously claim that Science is not a religion?

Everything affects everything else (at least indirectly).

Even if aiding that person means having to hurt many others?

The part that's not learned ;)

Only if you force the idea into the realm of logic.

Do you have proof of this?

Our 'inalienable' rights are given to us by people who defend those rights. They can be taken away. What did we do with Typhoid Mary?

I agree, but don't scientists have faith that science works all the time? According to the scientists' creed, the hypothesis that the scientific method works all the time must be proven.

A person has no "inaliable rights" in the scheme of nature. Only our civilization and laws allow this. You discuss your rights with something a little higher on the food chain as it eats you.

How can a Christian oppose cloning on the basis of morality? A scientist cannot create a soul, correct? If one cannot create a soul, he's not trying to play god is he? And what about genetically engineered food products? People arent protesting them because they're not creations of god. Niegther are computers or medicine for that matter. Cloning could reduce organ transplant waiting times and blood shortages to almost nil.

Tom, this is way over my head, and I wish you would just read the report. But for what it is worth, the following is my understanding of the reason:

In the mid 1980s, experiments with mice showed that nuclei at the two cell stage could be successfully exchanged between fertilized eggs, but nuclei transferred from embroyos at later stages was not successful because they did not direct development to the blastocyst stage. But in 1986, Willadsen reported that, unlike mice, enucleated eggs from sheep could be successfully fused with blastomerers taken from embryos at the eight-cell stage. In other words, there is clearly a species difference with respect to the cell stage during which nuclei transfer can occur. While the reason for this difference is not totally clear, it is suspected that it may be the result of the different times of embryonic gene activation in the different species.

The time at which embryonic gene activation occurs varies from the late 2-cell stage in mice, the 4-8 cell stage in humans and the 8-16 cell stage in sheep. The relatively late embryonic gene activation in sheep may be significant in providing additional cell divisions during which time nuclear reprogramming can occur. While not as short as in the mouse, the time period before gene activation in humans is relatively short compared to sheep (and also, cattle, I understand), which would tend to allow less time (perhaps, insufficient time) for reprogramming of genes to allow for subsequent normal development.

Bingo! (times 2).

Noel Yap:

Cliff Beall:

The "why" is because (organized) religion (as opposed to personal faith) is simply an avatar of politics, or "-archy" (": rule : government" (M-W)) -- don't know why it's not a word ("archy") in its own right. Religion attempts to provide the ultimate provenance or origin of the right to rule (e.g.,"I speak for the Father", "The Bible says ...", etc.).

All ancient societies were basically theocracies organized under one (state) 'religion', with the apparent 'ruler' often merely the (iron) glove enforcing the dictates of the 'guiding' hand(s). The 'afterlife' fables simply provided the mental or emotional 'carrot' and 'stick' in a single package.

Noel Yap:

Since it "must be proven" it can't be "faith". And there is no "scientists' creed" -- formal science is a discipline, not a religion. Apparently, you cannot complete a single thought without biting your own tail. Is all of life so confusing to you?

But has it been proven?

I take it then that from the moment you were born, you have guarded your liberty, and the reason you have that liberty is because you have guarded it. Nonsense. I submit that if by some accident of nature, you had been born in Cuba, then you would be without liberty, regardless how you and your parents might have attempted to guard it.

The real reason you and I have liberty is because our forefathers secured that liberty "to ourselves and our posterity." Read the Preamble to the Constitution. Most people like to concentrate on the Bill of Rights, but the Preamble tells it like it is. For your reading convenience, I have quoted the full text below:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Today's news is that the surrogate mother of the cloned calves, who were premature, has died of unknown causes. Autopsy will be performed, but calves appear to be doing okay. Since the calves were cloned from a bull, there can't be any suspicion that they arose from a fetal cell, as there was in the case of Dolly, who was cloned from a pregnant ewe. It will be interesting to read the scientific details, but that may take months to get peer reviewed and in print.

Tom, Bob--I know many scientists who say they are Christians. Cognitive dissonance, I suppose. Frankly, it is a lot easier to get by in this culture if you profess some sort of religion, so don't fault them too harshly. There is an interesting new book, "The God Part of the Brain" <www.godpart.com> that suggests that belief in a god has been selected for by evolution because humans have to have some way of dealing with their knowledge of their own mortality. I haven't read it yet, but it is in the mail.

True enough, but it has been a long time since the Catholic Church ruled anyone. Organized or not, they do not have a gun to hold to anybody's head. Yet religion persists, as if they did. The reception the Pope received in Cuba, for example, was astounding. Remember that most of these people were people who were not even born when worship in a church was last legal in Cuba. I would have thought religion would disappear in that environment, but apparently it did not. And, apparently, the same held for Russia. Go figure.

Dawn, I read your post after writing this, but I don't think the idea that religion was selected for by evolution provides an answer that is satisfying to me.

Your precis of "The God Part of the Brain" is perfectly consistent with my own opinion that 'religion' is a form of dissociative mental disorder wherein the unacceptable aspect of the real world (absolute death) is rejected for a more emotionally comfortable fable of an 'afterlife'.

Also, I fully accept that "it is a lot easier to get by in this culture if you profess some sort of religion." But that excuse can be used to justify many ills, and your (surely conscious) insertion of "profess" is well-advised.

Cliff Beall #4485

You got that right! And that's because the power to rule, and the 'gun' (actually, they preferred torture) to coerce, have been taken away from them. The important point is that they never get them back. I single-out 'Catholic Christian' because they are the original patent (the rest are nothing more than latter-day -- nationalistic or personal crank -- knock-offs) for absolute intolerance.

Centuries (decades, really) ago, we students taking a course in Anthropology were duly amused by our professor's levity in injecting a (he claimed) researched mapping of scientists (by type) to 'religion'. Based on his earlier lectures, we were not at all amazed to hear that Physicists and Mathematicians correlated highest and that, of course, Sociologists and Anthropologists correlated lowest -- he (obviously) proudly reserved the lowest rung on the ladder for his own discipline. His explanation was, of course, that the less one had to do with (knew of) Man, the more one tended to accept the concept of (a) god.

P.S. Nice of you to include the (not insignificant) "say they are".

satyakama,

No it doesn't. Please provide your source of this disinformation.

Steve,

That may very well be the case, but it is still a separate issue.

Noel,

Because it is the truth -- it deals directly with definitions and principles. Mutually exclusive means that if it is one, it is not the other. Therefore if something is science, then it is not religion. No intersection.

No, you are bending my words. It will not hurt any others in this case.

Evasion.

There is nothing outside the realm of logic. Proof? Human experience up to this point and the fact that the universe is deterministic.

Yes, the fact that you and I can so often disagree.

I acquiesce. Ideally that is not the case, but practically it is.

What do you mean prove it? Observe, experiment, observe, record. There is nothing which CAN not work. Unless you mean to prove that nature is not pretending to behave the way it does! Science is basically just the careful observation of nature. I've already discussed the idea that our observation is flawed, and disputed it.

Has WHAT been proven?

Cliff,

I see. That was a good explanation. However, this is all the more reason to promote research rather than a ban. I would not consider this a very large hurdle. The best way to ensure that human cloning will provide normal results is to first perfect it on mice, but not to ban human cloning.

My point was that governments are set up to protect our inherent rights from those who would keep them from us. But I'll concede to your point of view since they are only ideally inherent and not actually so.

Dawn,

Yeah, they covered their tracks quite well. Good forethought.

I only fault those who actually have unbased faith in something supernatural and still claim to be scientists, not those who just pretend to for social convention. Though I don't really respect the latter very much either.

Do ideas have a genetic basis? No. Perhaps we are prone to a belief in the supernatural due to psychological tendencies that are ultimately the result of genetics, but suggesting that it is hardwired seems ridiculous to me. I did a research paper a while back (I no longer have it posted on the web, but I should put it back up) in which I found several explanations of why people believe that are much more congruent with what we know than attributing it to genetics. One is the family structure of humans, where we always rely on a mother figure to provide for us and we always fear the punishment while depending on the protection of a father figure. If people could become more independent (government welfare does not help), then they would need less faith in this father/mother figure that they see in gods. One way to become independent is through learning science, so that critical thinking comes naturally, and it is thus possible to provide your own answers.

Cliff,

It's even worse than that. They created a tradition (back when they did hold a gun, well maybe a sword, to people's heads) in which they had parents hold the metaphorical gun to their own children's heads from the day they were born. This chain-letter type of indoctrination is a difficult process to interrupt. Afterall, children believe whatever their parents tell them, no matter how silly. Flying reindeer as an example.

bob,

I agree. Noel has a skill of twisting what you say in order to bend the conversation in a direction completely different than was intentioned. Noel, it would more constructive if we could try to stick to the points made, while confusing the issues as little as possible.

Mental disorder, yes; along the lines of multiple personalities in order to deal with trauma. But a genetically selected function of the brain? I don't think so.

Physicists the most religious? I think not. They are down near the bottom because of their knowledge of how the universe actually works in contrast to the way religions say that it works. However, I can see how people who study religions, especially comparatively, would not have faith in them either.

A view of the future:

I think we should immediately attempt to clone the following:

1. Egyptian Mummies (Tut or Akenaton) 2. Iceman found frozen from 30k years ago. 3. Wooly Mammoth 4. Cells from Shroud of Turin

Then we can proceed from that to copying a few people that might be helpful in various ways such as Einstein.

I have absolutely NO moral objection to the wholesale cloning and genetic re-engineering that is and will soon become possible. Let's get to it and see what we can do!

In the future I think that a person's cells will be the most valuable comodity they can own. For example I forsee that people like Bruce Willis and Cindy Crawford (and others) will SELL their cells to prospective parents for large sums of money. Theft of tissue will become a real problem, prosecuted in the courts as severely as rape and other crimes to the body. Do names like Logan_5 ring a bell? They will.

Best we get ahead of the problem rather than dragging ourselves through a tortured forced morality episode and losing time getting this technology off the ground.

"If we was moral we could all go nekkid"

We are not. Let's not be hypocritical pretending to be something we never were.

-RLH

Tom, children believe what their parents tell them up to about age 12! Madelyn Murray O'Hare's son is a Jesus freak. The Unitarian church is full of atheists and agnostics who came from traditional religions, including me. If family structure causes belief in God--and you may have something there--what causes family structure? The most primitive family structure must have been momma and the kids, much like in the inner city today. Are you advocating an upbringing for children like the Israeli kibbutz? Of course, if humans were all cloned and gestated in cows (apparently this is not beyond the realm of possibility--the early cow cloners said that they transplanted primate nuclei into cow oocytes and got blastulas)-- we might truly have no parents to raise the offspring, and thus no religion????

Dawn,

True, but by then the damage is usually already done. The need for faith is often (not always, but often) ingrained so as never to be changed. This was particularly true when people had less access to scientific learning and news of discoveries.

The theory is that, due to humans' long gestation and dependence periods, it was critical in early hominid history that the male protect and provide for his mate(s) and children to ensure their survival. Thus, during childhood, they always had a mother and father. There are all kinds of psychological effects of this, the most prominent of which is dependence on someone greater than themselves. So, even in adulthood, when there was a situation that was beyond an individual's control, they sought help from something or someone greater than themselves. This included the weather, availability of game, safety from preditors, et cetera. Asking this greater "someone" for rain, for instance, is a common prayer in almost all primitive cultures. It became ritual and involved things such as sacrifice, torture, offerings, dance, et cetera. Rituals were passed from generation to generation by word of mouth in the form of stories. The stories were eventually written down in the form of religious texts such as the Bible.

Human children will always have a father/mother figure raising them simply because they are dependent on help from adults, whether actual parents or not. In the case of cloning, there will almost certainly always be willing parent(s) to care for the child, or else the procedure would never have been done. The problem is not that there are parents (parents are actually a good thing ;o) but that parents raise their children to be perpetually dependent. If parents raised their children to be independent, then religion would not be necessary.

All,

I saw a segment on the 10:00 news (Fox channel 5, New York City) in which they talked about full-body transplants. The application cited was to save the life of a paraplegic, but it has obvious applications in our discussions of cloning -- to clone your body in order to recieve your brain. It was successfully performed on monkeys over 30 years ago. The head of one monkey was surgically attached to the body of another. They did not know enough about the nerve connections, so they were paralized, but the bodies sustained the new heads which were conscious (eyes following the researchers, reaction to sound, ability to eat, etc.). They died after eight days only because there was no anti-rejection preparation (which is not necessary if attaching a head to a clone of the original body). The doctor interviewed said it is possible today to provide a functional body (perhaps not fully, but more than paraplegics have). With cloning technology, this may provide indefinite lifespans.

Thanks for saying it was a good explanation. I did work hard at trying to get it right.

I find that I am unable to take issue with your response. I support research, and I doubt that the supposed possible technical problem that I summarized from the report is really a major hurdle. Nobody knows for sure, however, or will know until some research is done.

Okay, Tom, if you are going to concede that, I'll concede that our rights are "ideally inherent." Actually, I think I probably have already at one time or another, but just to make sure, I do offer the concession at this time.

I disagree with both of you. First, I do not agree that it is easier to get by in our society if one professes some sort of religion. I have had not a problem one while professing my agnostic beliefs among the engineers I work with and for, most of whom are Christians. Maybe I don't know many scientists, but I have known a pretty fair number of engineers during the past thirty years, and I can tell you that, without doubt, in my opinion, some of the best engineers I have known--and some that I have gotten along with the best and admire the most--just happen to be Catholics and Baptists, and there is not a doubt in my mind but that some of them were/are sincere in what they profess to believe.

And the way I figure it, if an engineer can be a Christian, and I am certain of that, I don't see why a scientist can't be one too. I strongly suspect that most of those scientists to which Dawn referred are sincere in their religious beliefs, and I strongly suspect that some of them are "real" scientists. Pure and simple, a scientist is a person who does science. If a person does science, he or she is a scientist.

I would not be too surprised to learn that most physicists are religious. However, I would be very surprised to learn that even a single paleoantropologist who ever lived was a Christian. You simply can not be a paleoantropologist and not believe in evolution, and evolution is a real problem for most Christians.

It doesn't work that way. Doing science is not just performing experiments and reporting the results, it is scientific and critical thinking. This involves empiricism, rationalism, and skepticism. A religious person does not use any of them.

A scientist is always skeptical of anything he accepts to be true. A scientist could never have a religion because he would always seek out things to disprove it (of which there are many). A scientist always uses logic. He could never have religion because he would always see logical contradictions (of which there are many). A scientist always sticks to empirical evidence. He could never have religion because there is no basis on which to believe in it. And THAT is why a scientist can not be religious.