Why is cloning wrong?

I really do not understand why human cloning is such a hot button subject. The public seems to have gotten their understanding of cloning from movies! First, one doesn't grow a full grown clone in a vat. Secondly, a clone will not have the memories of the original. With present technology, a clone would be born from a woman's womb, just like an ordinary person. One fact that many people do not seem to understand is that identical twins are natural occurring clones. So a clone is essentially a time-shifted twin. In fact, because of differences in the fetal environment of the clone compared to the original, a clone is likely to even look different. (The first cloned cat is an example of this.)

There is at least one compelling reason to do human cloning: infertile couples. This would give them another method of having a child. I have a child myself that was conceived using IVF. I remember when the first test-tube baby was born and all the concerns this created at the time. Now, it is not a big deal at all. Will cloning also become less controversial over time? With the rabid reactions to it so far, I fear not.

Now, at the present time, there is a legitimate reason for banning human cloning: the technology is not ready. The failure rate is high and there is a too high chance of birth defects. But these are not the reasons given for banning cloning.

The irony of the cloning discussion is that many people seem to consider therapeutic cloning as more acceptable than reproductive cloning. I really don't understand the ethics of this viewpoint. Therapeutic cloning starts with the exact same process as reproductive cloning, but harvests the stem cells from the resulting embryo. I don't pretend to know when life begins (or even if this question has a precise answer), but this procedure seems to have many more ethical questions than letting the embryo go to term (assuming that the technology gives the embryo an acceptable chance of no defects).

So if the technology is developed to allow safe human cloning, what is the harm in allowing it? Billionaires who hope to create duplicates to carry on their dynasty will be greater disappointed in the outcome!

Are all religions equal?

As a teenager, I asked myself this question. It seemed obvious to me that the answer is no. The religions of Jim Jones, the Heaven's Gate cult and others are clearly wrong. So how does one determine which are possible true religions and which are not? I reasoned that if there was a God, he should make it clear to a determined person which religion(s) is/are legitimate.

The Christian/Jewish/Islamic God had no problem with making his presence felt directly according to the Old Testament to the people of the middle east. I thought it very strange that he did not seeming appear to have make any effort to reach the other peoples of the world (not withstanding the Book of Mormon). He only seems to be interested in certain races of men. (Note that he does not seem to want the worship of the Egyptians in Exodus.) In fact, the Old Testament seems to imply that other gods exist (e.g., the Golden Calf). It is only in more modern times that these religions have attempted to convert others.

My criteria for a valid religion is one that is obviously true. I don't understand why God would try to confuse people with multiple religions and punish ones who pick the wrong one with Hell! I really can't understand how someone in a tiny cult can believe that they have the one true belief and everyone else is damned.

After mulling over these issues and applying Occam's razor, I came to the conclusion that since there is no obviously true religion, none of the world's religions are valid. And an atheist was born.

Why is evolution so hated?

It has always seemed strange to me that evolution is the big bugaboo that people have with science. Other differences between religion, such as the Big Bang and quantum theory, are rarely attacked even though they in many ways are much more antagonistic to religion. The big bang deals with the creation of the entire universe. Quantum theory puts limits on what is knowable. How much more heretical could these ideas be to religion?

Ironically, I believe that it is the fact that evolution shows that there is not such an unbridgeable gap between human and other life, that so many people refuse to accept the mountain of evidence for it. This is ironical, because religious people often accuse seculars of putting humans before god (and, in fact, are often referred to as humanists), but it is just this same attitude that keeps them from accepting the fact that humanity is only an insignificant part of the cosmos!

Introduction

I'm new to blogging, so this is just an experiment. I hope to post some half way interesting comments here soon.