Creationists: When is science "good" and when is science "bad"?

Question

How sure are you that the science we have to keep people in vegetative states alive for decades, that is until the money runs out, or the science to separate conjoined twins and choose which one is to die, or the science of fertility treatements, is better or worse than say
historical science like evolutionary biology and geology which just explain the origin of the species and give us insight to the past,
which one is truly more harmful to you in the science community
and don't you think your energy , if it does come to fighting science,
is better spent concentrating on the tough ethical dilemmas humanity is tinkering with when it comes to science. Why aren't you as much into ethics as you seem to be into desperately trying to poke holes in theories that cause NO ONE any harm?
When ACTUAL harm goes on all the time when speaking about ethics especially in medicine, what say you on the capitalization of it all.
Is that very Christ like at all?

Diedra H: I'm just going to clue you in on this:
conjoined twins do NOT die if left alone, OK? It is an ELECTIVE surgery, now do you see where the ethical implication really comes in?
Also,

Also you are confusing 'coma' with permanent regressive vegetative state, for which there is so much extensive brain damage, that there is NO chance of recovery, ever.
Coma is not vegetative state. ok?

Answer 1

SCIENCE FROM 2613 YEARS AGO

Daniel 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

Answer 2

Actually, there are many Christian ethicists. There are Christian hospitals that deal with these issues on a daily basis.

With the case of conjoined twins, in most cases, there is one which will of necessity be chosen to die because he or she has the lesser chance of living, and both will die if nothing is done. It's a sad and difficult decision, but usually, obviously the right one.

In cases with people diagnosed in a permanent vegetative state, some have actually come out of such states. Permanent, it seems, isn't always so.

These are not questions left unexplored by Creationsists.

To imply that such issues are left untouched to deal with baser issues by those who believe in creation is disingenuous at best.

BTW... I'm not a creationist. I'm not a Christian.

Dear Cloe e......

I wished to email this to you, but you're one of the gunshy sort who can't carry on a conversation offline. So.... here it is:

There are quite a few conjoined twins who WILL NOT survive if not separated. These are the ones I'm talking about, and surgery must be done at a very young age or both will die. Please don't confuse your ignorance for my lack of knowledge.

Too, I'm not talking about comas. I do know the difference between coma and permanent vegetative state. What I said is accurate. Persons diagnosed as being in a permanent vegetative state, have recovered. Again, this is your ignorance, not my lack of understanding.

Answer 3

First, science is good when it is used for good purposes. Scientists can work to create biological weapons, but this is not good science. Science can try to develop methods and techniques that might cure disease or injury, but if it is necessary to kill other human beings to get the materials for this, it is bad science.

When it comes to speculation, on the part of scientists, it is not science at all. As I have said before, if it is not a product of the Scientific Method, it is not science. Especially if it is speculation to support an unproven assumption.

Answer 4

You've missed the creationists' point--that's what comes from trying to use logic where they are concerned. :)

If you strip away the rhetoric and get down to what they are actually saying--the bare reality--here it is:

"Good" science (or any other ideas) is that whic conforms to their ideology. "Bad" science is science whis does not so conform. The truth of an idea is irrelevant.. Further, in the event that they are faced with science that is strongly supported, it is proper to lie, falsify data to create an ad hoc pseudo-theory, slander the proponents or take any other action that servesthe purpose of advancing their agenda.

And don't yell at me--they do all those things and more--based on their own words, admitted actions, anddocumented facts--all "in the name of the Lord." They are, in short, not only scientific neanderthals--and dishonest--they are also a disgrace to teh Christ they claim to worship.

Answer 5

I don't agree the theory of evolution doesn't do any harm. People just less than a century ago used social-Darwinism to claim that there must be a superior race of humans if Evolution is true. People like Margaret Sanger, who wanted to put birth control in the water supply in inferior racial people, felt inferior races had to be stopped from breeding.

Adolf Hitler advanced the theory to suppress the inferior races and elevate superior races. In the Declaration of Independence it states we "...are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." The right to life, liberty, and property (pursuit of happiness) are God given rights. With the concept of Evolution our rights come to be controlled by the superior race. This is how this concept has been used in the past making it a very dangerous concept to adopt.

I have looked into the science of creationism and find that it is the evolutionists that make assumptions in their analysis of the data. Funny thing is, most people who critisize creationism have never even looked into it while the creationists have looked into evolution. If you want to know my findings concerning the scientific data I would be happy to provide it with references.

Answer 6

because of the fact Creationism (wherein I incorporate clever layout) is an inherently fake declare, and in user-friendly terms fake claims could be used to help it. additionally, @ timetravler... "it is inaccurate to assert technological information has shown evolution to be invalid. it is likewise incorrect to assert evolution has shown to be the only answer to boot. No evidence on the two area is the spectacular answer Evolution is barely an thought" what share situations does the style between the "layman concept" and the "scientific concept" must be defined earlier people get it via their thick heads: while technological information calls something a "concept", in layman's words they are saying that's a certainty. What us laymen call a "concept" is what scientists call a "hypothesis". it isn't the hypothesis of Evolution. that's the thought of Evolution. very equivalent to the thought of Gravity, or Germ concept, or the thought of Relativity. Can somebody please discern this out? Please? that's stressful...

Answer 7

Scientific advancement is a gift from God Almighty.
God gives us this knowledge to help feed the poor, cure disease and make the quality of our lives better.
When we use science in this way, it pleases God and He blesses us. However, when we use science for evil, this is grievous to God. The theories you refer to, may and can cause harm in Gods eyes. When we deliberately set out to disprove Him, God says fine, you want me out of the way, I will leave.
Then God leaves and takes His blessings with Him.
Science does many wonderful things for each and everyone of us. Science also can and does, try to oppose God Almighty.
How can you say that some of these theories "cause NO ONE any harm?" When science puts itself in a position to oppose God Almighty, it does a great injustice to this world and to God.
Science is not larger or more intelligent than God.
And to tell people there is no God is the greatest "Harm" of all.
God Bless You....Peace.

Answer 8

well i'm a creationist, though not Christian, and i believe in science except for the theory of evolution. science is just man trying to explain what He made. i'm not the kind of person who likes using science for medicine like keeping people alive in comas, and like you i never understand how Christians will support that. i think people should be born when they would be and die when they should and we shouldn't use science to alter nature.

Answer 9

Christian Ethics by Dr. Norman L. Geisler

that booked helped me realize alot of things i didn't know about christianity relating to do or not to do.

Answer 10

You think you're quite a little know it all; you tell us. Come on, teach us unintelligent Christians all about Science. Educate us now! Ya, clue us in YOUR BRILLANCE. You're a fool. By the way, you could use some English and sentence structure education. Grow up.