<p>So recently in Bio, we were talking about the recent evolution vs. creationism stuff in PA (was it Pennslyvania? I might not remember correctly). It just still amazes me that something like this could have been brought into a legal court. Or is this just because I’m biased?</p>
<p>Well anyways, the teacher (and the class as well) spent a good chunk of class going over it and seeing how ridiculous it was (at least in our point of view, I don’t mean to offend any creationists). And it got me thinking: this is exactly why the US is falling behind in science. Every little protest, no matter how insignificant, has to go through a long, long, legal process. It’s just ridiculous! (at least I think so)</p>
<p>It’s not that ridiculous - think about how you’d feel on the other end of the spectrum. While it is very time consuming while we could be moving forward (evolutionist here too!) the beauty of America is that everyone gets to fight for whatever they believe in…lengthy court case or not.</p>
<p>Not to be rude or anything, but this is exactly what I mean! While others are rapidly advancing in science and discovering new technologies, some in the US are still being “superstitious” and just dismissing ideas that are considered principles by most others.</p>
<p>i dont get it…my bio teacher proposed and discussed:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>big bang</p></li>
<li><p>spontaneous generation</p></li>
<li><p>supreme being </p></li>
</ol>
<p>as the three theories of how life began. she classified evolution as totally different…she said no matter which one of the 3 we believe, evolution HAS occured and is proven science.</p>
<p>We need the checks and balances system, though. Other countries may be much further ahead of us, and that’s fine; they may be accelerating so fast that they will go too far to be able to manage and regulate appropriately. Sure, stem cells are being researched, abortions are being executed, and new drugs are being spread, but safety regulations may not be in place. As beneficial as progress in science sounds, we must take into account public safety as well. Look at what happened in Chernobyl thirty years ago. Maybe the Soviet Union was too concerned with the number of nuclear plants in its nation rather than the quality and safety of each one?</p>
<p>I think I’m rambling. I can’t hear myself think anymore. I have a headache.</p>
<p>And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. </p>
<p>1:21
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. </p>
<p>1:22
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. </p>
<p>1:23
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. </p>
<p>1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. </p>
<p>1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. </p>
<p>mathwiz - you can’t say “just because it might happen, we should willingly let it happen.” Plus, Three Mile Island was a mistake on our part, and it taught us such. Since then, we have been more cautious with nuclear facilities and research.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that unrestricted development can lead to scandals like that seen at SNU with the Woo-Suk Hwang case of falsification of lines. In addition, some checks will need to be put in place against experimental macroorganism creation; stem cell research needs to stay in stem cells and benefit humans only, nothing else.</p>