Closer to the truth today than in the 1920s, no?

[Merla]

I was just wondering if you think we're any closer today in solving the nature of our origins than we were in the mid 1920s (the times of John Scope's) ? Are we really that? I am doubtful. Sure, we find new things every now and then to strengthen our opinion on how life evolved.. but at the same time, the number of theories increases and I'm not sure if we're actually getting anywhere.

[TINNY]

you might want to refer to my signature below:

[Fishteacher73]

Without a doubt we are getting closer and understand the nature of life than we did in the 1920's. In the 20's we did not even understand the nature of DNA at all, or even if it was involved with heredity. Just the chemical understanding of DNA helps bolster Darwin's basic theory about the mechanisms of evolution.

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by Merla

I was just wondering if you think we're any closer today in solving the nature of our origins than we were in the mid 1920s (the times of John Scope's) ? Are we really that? I am doubtful. Sure, we find new things every now and then to strengthen our opinion on how life evolved.. but at the same time, the number of theories increases and I'm not sure if we're actually getting anywhere.

If by "we" you mean scientists, then it's very clear that progress is almost exponential in direction. The majority of "we," however, still cling to that "old time religion" which never changes.

[Merla]

Thank you,

Are there any connection between Frankenstein(originally entitled The Modern Prometheus) and this following reference to the myth of Promotheus(modern-day context) ?

"By contrast, the voices of biotechnology are Promothean, proactive and impatient with ethical restraints. Both need to exercise wisdom and prudence, always in short supply. I stand at the edge of a new world where human beings can virtually reinvent themselves. Together with politicians and the people, they must decide what is really meant by human life and progress"

[Fishteacher73]

The impact of new science could easily be constured as analagous to the impact of man taming fire.

In terms of religious context, it could be drawn as well. Prometheus was punished by the gods for his actions. It could be argued that this is the same fear that much of the faith-based opposition to such technologies have. The "immorality" of such actions (and the eventual vengence of God for disobeying).

[Stargazer]

I must agree with lindagarette, that scientists learn more and get a greater understanding for our nature all the time. Sadly the general population doesn't follow. Sure, the heliocentric worldview and the round Earth view are accepted since long ago, but a lot of people, even in the parts of the world that are in leading positions in science, still don't know about the age of the universe, or biological evolution. I think popularisation of science could help a bit, but not all the way.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

...Sadly the general population doesn't follow. Sure, the heliocentric worldview and the round Earth view are accepted since long ago....I think popularisation of science could help a bit, but not all the way.

SG- Your point is valid. I am, however, equally struck by the thin knowledge that basic science people have about what "religious" people think. There are a lot of brilliant people on this site, but their knowledge of religious basics is often akin to a high school freshman's knowledge of biology: exposed, but not particularly informed.

I suggest that information trading both ways is useful.

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

SG- Your point is valid. I am, however, equally struck by the thin knowledge that basic science people have about what "religious" people think. There are a lot of brilliant people on this site, but their knowledge of religious basics is often akin to a high school freshman's knowledge of biology: exposed, but not particularly informed.

I suggest that information trading both ways is useful.

While I do like fiction I don't like it so much that I actually believe that the fictional stories are true, or that I can talk to the characters in them. Religion is irrational and when it comes to the understanding of the world, completely irrelevant. Science provides us with the means to better understand the universe and our place in it - religion has been standing in the way for centuries and even today this is happening. That religion and science are equal when it comes to the validity of their respective claims and methods, it's just a strange viewpoint. Religion, superstition and such things does not help.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

Religion is irrational and when it comes to the understanding of the world, completely irrelevant....

This is a postulate. This is the part that I think deserves better airing within the "science" community. I am a basic scientist by nature, I believe in the validity of the scientific method, and I think that religion is neither irrational nor irrelevant.