Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Jan 30, Group 2, Case 2- Evolution and Intelligent Design vs Biosynthetics?

Hey guys, its Cassie. Today we talked about case two which led us to some topics:

The difference between evolution and intelligent design,
Should either, one or both (evolution/intelligent design) be taught in public schools,
Evolution vs. natural selection,
Intelligent design vs. creation,
That the question, of whether or not biosynthesis is morally okay,  should not really be related to whether or not one believes in evolution or intelligent design,
 That both evolution  and  intelligent design are not proven,
and the question of what separates us from other species. 

In some side conversations we talked about:
"Dumb people in our society are the ones that are having children"
We also mentioned  that some of us like the movie "idiocracy", and the books "enders game".


Ps- sorry if I miss-spelled something


  1. I believe everyone should have an open mind when learning about these subjects. Since there is no way of proving one over the other, I would suggest just introducing the ideas like theories you would learn in philosophy from Descartes, Whitely, Mill, Kant, Berkely, etc. What we do know is that science works. We know it works because it sets the foundations for buildings, cars, phones, and computers that we type on. It has done so reliably. Until the day we drop something and it goes upwards, we can doubt science. This leads into the question of creation and intelligent design. Like my intro stated, we will never find the answers to life's great mysteries. Science and religion are both dead ends when it comes to try and explain existence/creation. Biosynthesis, IMO is borderline crazy scientist/frankenstein material that man should not encounter. It just seems touchy, doesn't it? But for the one's that want to go ahead and have a hand at it, I would have no qualms. It just shows the quality of the person who is handling the biosynthesis 'experiments'. Creating life as it would be called in that situation would be no different than creating life via coitus. The only difference is one way is natural and the other is synthetic. Now the reason/intention of doing it the synthetic way is to question. Sure we may say it is for science and furthering knowledge, but if another being has been created and given consciousness (which I think is still centuries to come) we would have to take into account the responsibility of suffering and turmoil that being may encounter. What does that make us? Religious folks have told me life is God's gift. Why would a gift be so harsh as to make some people commit suicide? Not trying to start a debate but open minds when encountering such situations and their intentions.

  2. I can see this topic is probably going to come up often since one of the most influential social constructs behind morality is religion.
    Personally I don't think that religion and science have anything to do with each other.
    I think that a good way of looking at things, if one chooses to explore both science and religion, is that science explains how things happen and god explains why (for those who choose to believe so).

  3. i have my religion but it does not interfere with my zeal of science. i let my faith be a part of me and not dictate every part of my life. i personally feel that "our maker" wants us to become better and better in all aspects of our lives. i don't feel science is ever "playing god," rather that we strive to decipher the underpinnings of the universe. God does not want us to limit our selves, but i do hope that we take our time and understand what we discover. with modern scientific principles and review processes i believe that we have a good framework on that issue but vigilance can never be left untouched.