No problem, Ray. I appreciate you greatly.

Peace, y'all.

Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rayilyn Brown
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NO FAITH VERSUS SCIENCE DILEMMA

sorry  Rick, I did mean it for Dave.  I don't know why I get in these discussions, I guess  it must be the teacher that is still in me.  And then, PD  has pretty  much robbed  me of my life and its all I can still do.

I do think it is important that people understand to a reasonable extent, 
the research that affects our lives.    Whether it is good  or bad, moral or 
immoral is something each person will decide for himself.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick McGirr
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NO FAITH VERSUS SCIENCE DILEMMA

Ray, I think you meant to address this to Dave. I agree with you.

Dave, I think the conversation threatens to veer wide from the purpose of this listserv. If we cannot help the cause, which is fighting PD, then we should go somewhere else to 'talk' about other issues such as personally held beliefs or misconceptions, or the benefits and limits of science or religion.

I stand ready to discuss a range of subjects, anything you like, anywhere you like, public or private. But we've heard from a great many here who would love to avoid the arguments that often erupt. Unfortunately, science and religion do seem to intersect over PD and medical research, and that causes sparks. Many people around the world use this list as a forum for giving and getting support and advice on the ups and downs of living with PD. I respect that, and I think it's a very important use for this listserv. 
I think I'm pretty much done with commenting on religion and/or science here. I'm inviting any others who might want to continue the conversation to suggest a forum for us to meet, thereby saving this place for those who need it.

Let me suggest Gather.com, where I have been occasionally posting different things since 2006. It's designed more for writers, rather than the quick and easy format of facebook. There are many viewpoints represented there, and thousands of members. It's not the fastest site, but its content is rich and varied.

Rick McGirr

-----Original Message-----
From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rayilyn Brown
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: NO FAITH VERSUS SCIENCE DILEMMA

Rick

Poverty, starvation, and horrible diseases like Parkinson's threaten human dignity, not science.  There is  nothing noble about Alzheimer's, ALS or
Huntington's.   I do  not wish to return to the lives of our ancestors
living in cold caves, eating raw  meat and dying at 18.

And another thing, it is not faith versus science.  They are two different ways of "knowing" about our existence; one requires evidence and is self-correcting, the other allows you to believe anything you want.  It is not a matter of picking one over the other,  but of knowing the difference between the two.

Ray


-----Original Message----- 
From: DAVID MCMURRAY
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: MJFOX ON SANTORUM/FAITH VERSUS SCIENCE

Ray, there are many voices in the scientic community on both sides of the
issue, but, unfortuneatly, the loudest seem to come from athiests that are
on a mision to prove there is no God..  An example of  this is one you may
know, James Randi, who was kicked out of a Sunday School class and has
dedicated his life, as an atheist, "tried and true".  He agrees with guys
like biologist Richard Dawkins, (this info is gleaned from Big Think
Editors) who has stated that scientists never need faith.  But then goes on
to say that his "faith is based on the scientific method.  (a religion)?

David Gelernter, a professor of computer science at Yale University has
expressed concern that technology will eventually threaten human dignity and
integrity, making the "wisdom" and "moral seriousness" found in religion
even more important to future generations".  He says without the moral
absolutes found in religion, technology's increasinrg intrusion into human
life via cloning and genetic engineering may present a "tremendously
dangerous, moral conflict of interest" to mankind.

For me, it takes more faith to believe that the universe just haphazardly
came together in perfect orderly fashion, (the result of a Big Bang), than
to believe in a Creator.

Dave











----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rayilyn Brown" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: MJFOX ON SANTORUM


> Rick
>
> I like your observation that life is a continuum.  We were all star dust
> once.
>
> IVF  sure changed the abortion argument didn't it?  I mean who knew about
> zygotes among the non-scientific population?
>
> People who  oppose science and base their opinions on faith should not be
> making research decisions in a secular society IMO.
>
> What I am most  concerned about is this hostility to science.   Faith
> didn't give us knowledge of DNA  or IVF.
>
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Rick McGirr
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 12:45 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: MJFOX ON SANTORUM
>
> After listening to MJ Fox's diplomatic approach, I clicked on the short
> with Ron Paul and heard his pandering. I have also heard Santorum's
> absolute statements, and Gingrich's hypocritical traditionalism, Romney's
> posturing, and President Obama's strong support for a woman's right to
> choose. I can characterize much of what I hear as political "peacock-ing",
> if you'll allow me.
>
> The discussion about when a person's life begins is an interesting one. I
> expect that the more convinced one is about when personhood begins, the
> more resolute one will be about the issue of when abortion is allowable.
> The view that the fetus' life need not be considered at all seems to have
> taken a back seat to the idea that, at some stage along the way, a viable
> human person emerges during the nine month process, and "person" means
> "citizen" and "citizen" means "rights".
>
> For me, the terms need further clarification. "Life" to me is a continuum.
> If I fully represent my views here, it will be something different than
> what others would state. The questions crop up like new plant growth after
> a forest fire. Trying to be a bit dainty here, there is a lot of "life"
> that ends up in places other than where God intended for our propagation.
> If a couple copulate unsuccessfully, are eggs and sperm cells "life", even
> when they don't combine? Is this an example of when "life" ends? How is
> this life/death to be classified? Is there evidence of a moment at which
> the breath of life is blown into a group of cells? Does this "breath"
> cause a group of cells to be an individual? When is it appropriate to
> bestow full citizen's rights to this group of cells? Is there a moment
> which passes, after which we can draw the distinction between persons and
> biological material? Further, do frozen, non-implanted embryos meet any
> such definitions? These 'groups of cells' are not in a survivable
> condition, once they are thawed. They still have to successfully be
> implanted by the doctor, and attach to the uterine wall of the candidate
> mother and develop the umbilical cord, etc, through the months during
> gestation. Is there a mother/child relationship between the un-implanted
> embryo while it survives in the womb? Is the woman actually a "mother",
> before, during, and/or after such attempts are made, either in the bedroom
> or the laboratory? In the case of unsuccessful attempts, should the
> doctor, or the copulating couple, be charged with negligence or worse?
> This is not a ridiculous question, within the framework of current
> discussions, that is, if "life begins at conception".
>
> Are these and a host of other questions not legally, socially,
> religiously, personally, politically pertinent? Is this not as thorny a
> range of subjects as you could encounter in any creekside raspberry patch?
>
> My view is that even though males participate in the process of
> procreation, women ought to be the majority of any body deciding on a
> woman's right to ask for and receive abortion. If I were a woman, I
> wouldn't want any gaggle of rich, white men to sit in judgment of my
> sexuality and the sanctity of my actions. I also view the discussion of a
> woman's right to abortion services as a distracting parallel discussion on
> the rights of the cells of embryos. My view is that there is no evidence
> of personhood at the stage of combined sperm and egg, before implantation
> in the uterus, including those embryos in the freezers of IVF clinics. The
> use of such embryos for medical research should be allowed and fully
> supported.
>
> So many questions, and so many answers...
>
> Rick McGirr
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rayilyn Brown
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:51 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: MJFOX ON SANTORUM
>
> Fox has interesting take on Santorum’s ESCR beliefs:
>
> http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/14/michael-j-fox-on-rick-santorums-anti-stem-cell-research-beliefs-i-dont-want-to-suppress-ideas-i-dont-agree-with/?hpt=pm_mid
>
> Ray
> Rayilyn Brown
> Past Director AZNPF
> Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn