|
Galileo is a special case, I think. From what I know (and I don't know much), if Galileo had been a better politician, the Church wouldn't have been after him nearly as much. But it's hard to deny that in this case, the church acted in a way that, at the very least, was likely to retard scientific development. But all that shows is that in one case, the Church acted to retard scientific development. Your claim is that it is essential to religion that it generally retard scientific progress. The one is barely even evidence for the other.
All current treatments using stem cells use adult stem cells, which do not involve the destruction of embryos. Embryonic stem cells are more plastic than adult stem cells; many scientists believe that for this reason, they will ultimately prove to be more useful. But there's also a fair amount of evidence that this makes them much more difficult to use, since it makes it hard to turn them into what you want them to. There are also greater difficulties with rejection in the case of embryonic stem cells than with adult stem cells, at least with respect to some treatments, since adult stem cells can be harvested from the adult requiring the treatment.
How familiar are you with the criminal justice system? Believe me when I say that the 'rules' that apply there have nothing like universal validity, and are rife with exceptions. Just today I was working with case law that postulates an exception "when in the interest of justice". Now, I'm glad that there are these exceptions. The law must be somewhat flexible. I'm just saying that there are no laws in the sense in which science has laws.
You say string theory was prevalent, but that's different from gaining general acceptance. But the more important part of my claim is that these theories don't represent incommensurate systems the way that Newtonian and Einsteinian physics do.
Regarding the Bible and morality (and I think this is quickly becoming a red herring): to a certain extent, I look to the Bible for guidance on how to live my life. But I also look to other moral teachers (like Nietzsche). The Bible mostly tells us what we must do to be saved (believe in Christ and trust in him alone for our salvation), not what it means to live a moral life. The general principle "Life ought to be preserved" is indeed a Biblical principle. But it's a principle common to all systems of morality. I, and many Christians I know, think social policy ought only be determined by these sorts of general principles, not principles which are peculiar to Christianity.
__________________
"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
|