A brief note on "pro-life" rhetoric

Comments

4 comments posted
That's most becomingly modest

But nobody says anything much more eloquently than you do.

moiv's picture
Posted by moiv on 10 November 2005 - 11:07pm
Coming from you

That's a great compliment! Thanks!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 11 November 2005 - 12:25am
Pro Choice...

This debate will never end. The reason being that, as a Christian, I don't believe my body is mine. Nor do I believe your body is yours. When we differ on that starting point, things will obviously be viewed from different angles on a wide variety of issues, including abortion.

I came across your site while researching different viewpoints on the Kansas intelligent design issue. In no way am I here to bash you or your readers (and I hope for the same courtesy). This site does have a nice design and you are a very eloquent writer. I do have a question about the intelligent design debate I would like to ask here: Why is it ok to teach kids only evolution in schools? I mean, it's regarded as fact to you, but not to me (although I do agree in some inter-species change). Is it so horrible to suggest there may be a different idea or way that we came about? I would then say kids could research both ideas and follow the one they believe, whatever road that may take them down (Darwinism, Christianity, Muslim, etc...).

Thanks for your time,

James D.

James's picture
Posted by James (not verified) on 14 November 2005 - 9:11am
Science is not about belief

And it's this misconception of what science is -- that it's somehow just about "viewpoints" -- that leads people to think, "Why not?"

The reason intelligent design should not be taught in science class is that it's all entirely speculation, with no evidence, no support. That's not to say it might not be true. But there's no scientific indication that intelligent design is anywhere except in that which we create ourselves. (We can debate how intelligent our own designs are elsewhere.)

Evolution, on the other hand, is taught based on observed evidence that can be found throughout the world. Evolution hypotheses stand up in the lab, where controlled expriments confirm them repeatedly, making evolution a theory.

And because it's a science, evolutionary theory as it stands today is somewhat different from what Darwin concluded. Why? Because science is based on what we observe, and what we can discern from it. And our observations change, so our theories change.

On the other hand, intelligent design starts with the conclusion, and then tries to fit the facts to fit the conclusion. It's not science.

Teach it in church. Teach it in religion classes and philosophy classes. But to teach it as a science destroys what science is all about.

And if you ask me, it also desecrates what faith is all about.

So, in conclusion, the premise of your question is wrong. And to follow your logic, we should also teach that aliens created humans because there's no evidence to the contrary. And that the flying spaghetti monster created life on Earth because there's no evidence to the contrary.

As to your first paragraph, that's nice that you don't believe your body is yours. Does that mean it belongs to the government? To everyone else? Who's body is it? (And if you say God's, then who are you -- who is anybody -- to say what God wants to be done with your body? I guess you just have to step back to your own faith to find the answer. But does your own faith about your own answer regarding your own body give you rights over someone else's body, too?)

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 14 November 2005 - 10:42am