How discussing science sparks a race row

It has been common knowledge for millenia that the offspring of two close relatives are more likely to suffer from birth defects and inherited disease than those conceived from parents more distantly related.

Even though  understanding of why this might be  did not  come until the foundations of the science of genetics by Gregor Mendel in the late 19^th century for centuries there have been laws and customs in place to prevent the parings of people who are closely related. In fact I believe the incest taboo is inbuilt in most of us.

My own church bans first cousin marriages I believe (I really should check but I haven't the time right now).

However first cousin marriages are common amongst Pakistani Muslims in Great Britain apparently. And these are often arranged marriages.

And it would seem that the evidence is there that amongst this group there is a far higher incidence of birth defects and inherited disease than in the general population.

Phil Woolas a Cabinet minister in the British parliament and who represents an electorate with a high population of muslims has raised this issue, igniting the inevitable charges of Islamophobia and racism.

What this illustrates to me is the way political activists, politicians and the like attempt to suppress unpalatable facts or those which stand in the way of their personal agendas by use of what are really hate words.

There are laws, some civil, some religious on who can marry whom and they have evolved for a reason, reasons maybe not fully understood even to this day but at their heart is an understanding of the necessity for humanity to produce a healthy new generation to carry on from where we leave off.

And slowly but surely the social architects are undermining these laws which is probably the greatest threat to the future of humanity we face today.

Comments

[fugley]

Science can, and does, upset people of all sorts of faiths for all sorts of reasons.

Is this any different to the trojan horse of xtian ID myth? ID is just another attempt to evade the truth to enable clinging to "deeply held" and "cherished" beliefs.

Sadly, the majority of the world's population would rather cling to myths born of heat and exhaustion in deserts than accept the trths offered by science, be it about creation, genetics, reproduction, etc.

[Jim]

Fugley

I don't find science upsetting to my faith at all.

There are no truths in science - only facts. Sadly, facts are far more fluid than most scientists realize.

I graduated from med school 25 years ago. More than half of what I learned at med school is now known to be either flat out wrong or only partly true.

My point is that there is no monolithic thing called science standing against faith. Science is just a way of finding out how the world works. It's not some sort of new atheistic religion like Dawkins et al make it out to be. It can't be - because the conclusions we draw from the facts are more often wrong than they are right.

[dad4justice]

fugly - after reading Ian's recent book I think you'll agree that most scientists today - believe in the existence of Jesus.

Only people like Dawkins and yourself do not believe, because they make millions printing utter rubbish.

[fugley]

dad, please define "most scientists" and provide verification of your claim.

As an example, I am sure there are millions of scientists in Asia who do not believe in Jesus; buddha maybe, Vishnu quite likely, Allah (may his name be praised) by quite a few more.

The closer scientists are to subjects such as biology and astronomy, the less likely they are to believe in any god or gods.

[Fugley]

Jim, no one, least of all myself or Dawkins, treat science as any form of religion, and isn't "athestic religion" an oxymoron?

However, science does offer us far greater insights in to "how the world works" than does any religious text.

[dad4justice]

"Allah (may his name be praised)"
Wash your mouth out fugly!

[fugley]

I do, daily, with Shiraz.

Now, how about replying to the questions I raised?

[dad4justice]

Fugly did Stalin say he was going to dethrone the Lord of the Heavens or Allah of the Heavens ??

Most credible scientists realize the significance of Biblical scripture.

I bet some sparks go inside your head when the neurons short out ?

[Andrew Davies]

There is good news Fugley. No matter how much you deny and mock God He still loves you and leaves open the way for you to accept and embrace that.
BTW there is a religious text that deals with the issue this post is about. What's more it was written long before any scientist existed.

[fugley]

So dad, in your opinion, scientists who follow religions other than xtianity are not credible?

Good thing for you that the benefits of science are available to all, even those woh would elevate myth above science.

[fugley]

Your god has no love. A loving god would never permit the suffering on this earth.

[dad4justice]

fugly - I pray you understand the love of GOD one day.

[fugley]

dad, how about backing up your claims about most scientists believing in jesus?

Forget the proseltsing about god, deal with the issues at hand.

God is not great

God is not love

God is alive and well and working on a much less ambitious project.

[dad4justice]

How do you explain fugly to anybody is beyond me?

[peter]

Daddy 4

I am currently doing a chapter by chapter re-read of "The Divinity Code".

But can't recall Ian saying that most scientists are Christian.

However I do think that many of the "leading scientists" that he refers to - like the Intelligent Design people - are likely to fundamentalist Christians.

Other scientists, such as Buddhist scientists and Hindu scientists, atheist and agnostic scientists have no reason to presuppose Bible as true - therefore they are not trying to prove same things that are typically Ian's topics.

[fugley]

Well, daddio has fallen in to the trap of believing nothing of worth comes from any one not a xtian.

But Peter, please don't be decieved in to thinking ID has anything to with science, it does not.

I am unaware of any scientific discoveries made by ID. I've asked Ian for some in the past, but never get any.

[ropata]

fugley, your first comment was beside the point. The issue at hand is the suppression of dissent by our enlightened PC thought police. A little controversy here and there is good for science. Suppression of hard truths and open debate is bad for science. Get it?

[fugley]

No,, my first comment gets right to the point.

And, to go back to the beginning, where is the evidence of suppression of dissent by anyone other than those whose myths are being challenged? Just like ID.

[ropata]

So you admit that ID is currently being suppressed? We are getting somewhere.

[fugley]

No, my (poorly worded?) contention is that there is no suppression of dissent here, the only whingers are the myth believers. Just as with ID, there is no suppression of it (Jeebus knows, Ian gives it enough coverage) but ID is simply a new set of clothes for an old, disproven myth.

And I am still waiting for any evidence of scientific discoveries made using the principles of ID.