asaris

I suspect we'll be running around in circles shortly, but...

That's technology, not science. But I'm not sure I can explain the difference if you happen not to see it. Science is a distinctly modern enterprise arising in the late middle ages, in part out of the work of alchemists. With the exceptions of Aristotle (and perhaps Roger Bacon), no one before this era did anything like what we would call science, and Aristotle's scientific method is much different than ours. In fact, 1. looking at Aristotle's natural philosophy isn't a bad way to see how radically different it is and 2. that 'science' was called natural philosophy for quite a long time, even after it split off from philosophy, might reveal something about the way pre-modern man thought about it.

Ok, sure, some theists believe that the rules don't always apply. So what? How does that retard the growth of science?

That's not exactly what I meant. First, I'm not sure that any of those theories have gained general acceptance in the scientific community. Second, I'm not sure that they're sufficiently distinct that moving between them constitutes a scientific revolution. But these are empirical claims, and I could easily be wrong.

First, are you aware of the reasons the Catholic Church gives for its positions on celibacy and contraceptives? I don't always agree with the Catholic Church, but they're usually pretty good about arguing for their position. You probably disagree with their reasoning in these cases (since they're natural law arguments), but given their assumptions, the arguments make at least some sense. Second, I'm not sure how teaching that you shouldn't have sex outside of marriage has anything to do with retarding the growth of science.

Okay, first, the Bible is not primarily a book about how to live a moral life. Second, yes, the story of the sacrifice of Isaac raises difficulties. Third, traditionally, Christians have believed that abortion was okay until roughly the thirteenth or fourteenth week (cf. Aquinas, cited in Roe v Wade). Fourth, embryonic stem cell research is less promising than the main-stream media would have you believe.

But some of the concerns you mention don't seem to have a necessary connection to religion. Surely some moral atheists could have the sort of concern for the unborn that a lot of religious people have. Science often raises moral objections. Sometimes, in hindsight, the detractors of religion love to cite religion as having threatened to stymie research, as in the case of Galileo. Sometimes, the role of religion in ending genuinely unethical research is forgotten, as in the case of vivisection. (Consider that one of the founders of the SPCA in England was William Wilberforce, subject of a recent movie.) But all this shows is that sometimes the practices of science run close along an ethical boundary, and so ethical (or hyper-ethical) people object. So, unless you don't think scientists are able to act unethically in doing research, it seems like this is rather a good thing, not a bad thing.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche