Forum
Human Cloning Foundation Hails British Scientists
Paralyzed
Walk Again
Childless Couples
Essays
The Benefits of
Human Cloning
All the Reasons to
Clone Human Beings
The Top Ten Myths
about Human Cloning
Human Cloning is the Cure for Infertility
Infertility is
a Disease
Books
People
Reports
Archives
Feedback
Donate
Links
Website Links
About Us
Contact Us
Site history
Site Map
Past Books of the Month
John Kunich's Books
Copyright
Illegal Beings: Human Clones
Re: Holy Spirit - Revised
libfemme ( 05/22/2004, 02:12:36 )I am not arguing that the environment has no effect on religiosity. What I am arguing is that it is not the sole cause. You seem to be arguing that genetics cannot possibly have any effect on religiosity. If so, I presume you have a reason for believing this. What is your counter evidence that discounts genetics as a causal factor? Among the environmental factors you listed family as an influence. But that hardly disproves genetics, now does it? A family is not just people who happen to live together but people who are genetically related as well. If religiousity were genetic then you would expect it to appear as a hereditary pattern, i.e. in families.The question isn’t whether God exists or is the primary causation. The questions is how does God do it.You argue that science can’t explain everything. How far would you take your argument? Would you deny all cause and effect in nature then? Genetics does not disprove the existence of a god. It doesn’t address the issue one way or another. A Christian could argue that God saves man by manipulating his environment or by manipulating his genetics, or by both. Science does not address the whys of life, but the “hows”. If you believe that God controls man then I would argue “and when He does He uses genetics.”You are quite right that John Calvin believed that environmental factors could not save man. He was refuting the prevailing dogma of the time which had maintained that salvation could be earned entirely through ‘good works.’ Calvin argued that God determines who will be saved and who will not and He predetermines this before birth.How is that inconsistent with genetics? It would seem that 200 years before the microscope was invented John Calvin was already perceiving a fact of reality. That Calvin knew nothing about genes at the time does not invalid either Calvinism or genetics.In 18th-19th centuries there was a philosophy called Natural Theology that held that God created the world, and therefore studying His world was a way of studying the nature of God. William Paley, the minister who argued for intelligent design by using the famous example of finding a watch on ground, was its main proponent.You, on the other hand, would seem to be arguing that the laws of nature have nothing to do with God;that apparently God does not use the laws of nature to affect his will. I wonder who put the laws of nature in place then.
This Message is being posted for educational purposes, as well as for comment and criticism, by the visitors to the HumanCloning.org Foundation website (www.HumanCloning.org ).
Disclaimer: Information provided on this web site is for educatonal purposes only. It is not a substitute for, nor can it replace advice from your own physician.
HumanCloning.org™ Established December 11, 2002.
Who's Afraid of Human Cloning?
Disease Prevention and Treatment