Rick  and Ray;
I agreed to that a long time ago, but my posts have been a direct response
to issues brought up by both of you.  If you don't want me to respond to
"faith has no place in science", don't post it.  I was invited to debate the
"when does life begin" subject....

If I have offended anyone, I apologize, I thought we were having an honest,
objective debate on issues important to all of us.

I do, unless I get kicked off, intend to respond if these and similar
statements are posted to the membership.

Regards;

Dave


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rick McGirr" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:39 AM
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