Post by bjorn on Jan 3, 2011 22:19:16 GMT
At least according to AHA (haven't they recently stopped touring!?) - www.iheu.org/nasa-discovery-new-form-life-catalyst-theological-debate ...
Responding to the news from NASA that a microbe has been discovered that overturns previously understood paradigms about the nature of biochemistry, the American Humanist Association (AHA) highlighted the challenge to traditional religious accounts of life on earth. The discovery of a bacterium that can substitute arsenic for phosphorus is seen by many as potentially redefining life, broadening the scope of conditions capable of sustaining life on Earth...
..."The polite thing to say is that discoveries such as this don't really impeach the credibility of established religion, but in truth of
course they really do," said David Niose, AHA president. "The fact that life can spring forth in this way from nature, taken in context with what else we've learned in recent centuries about space and time, surely makes it less plausible that the human animal is the specially favored creation of an all-powerful, all-knowing divinity."
How or why this will influence which debate we are not told, not even how it would be different from the debate of the last few centuries.
It is not even said that the 1800-debate took place in a culture with a firm belief in the spontaneus creation of life every day, as proven e.g. by flies in dung.
Humanism is a philosophy that approaches life from a natural standpoint, deriving truth claims not from ancient texts or alleged revelation but from observation and rational thinking.
It may be wise of them do a tad more observation and thinking.
It is rather typical of AHA not to mention the theological support of evolution both in the 1800's and among mainstream churches today.
I guess some of this press release may boil down to a tunnel vision in their struggle with creationists. And like most organisations they feel a need to jump on bandwagons.
The question is when they will make the observation that this "new life form" may be just a contamination? And start to think rationally.
Responding to the news from NASA that a microbe has been discovered that overturns previously understood paradigms about the nature of biochemistry, the American Humanist Association (AHA) highlighted the challenge to traditional religious accounts of life on earth. The discovery of a bacterium that can substitute arsenic for phosphorus is seen by many as potentially redefining life, broadening the scope of conditions capable of sustaining life on Earth...
..."The polite thing to say is that discoveries such as this don't really impeach the credibility of established religion, but in truth of
course they really do," said David Niose, AHA president. "The fact that life can spring forth in this way from nature, taken in context with what else we've learned in recent centuries about space and time, surely makes it less plausible that the human animal is the specially favored creation of an all-powerful, all-knowing divinity."
How or why this will influence which debate we are not told, not even how it would be different from the debate of the last few centuries.
It is not even said that the 1800-debate took place in a culture with a firm belief in the spontaneus creation of life every day, as proven e.g. by flies in dung.
Humanism is a philosophy that approaches life from a natural standpoint, deriving truth claims not from ancient texts or alleged revelation but from observation and rational thinking.
It may be wise of them do a tad more observation and thinking.
It is rather typical of AHA not to mention the theological support of evolution both in the 1800's and among mainstream churches today.
I guess some of this press release may boil down to a tunnel vision in their struggle with creationists. And like most organisations they feel a need to jump on bandwagons.
The question is when they will make the observation that this "new life form" may be just a contamination? And start to think rationally.