I found it interesting how quickly the text and the teacher discuss and dismiss "religious ideas."
So far, I've gotten a few chuckles from my bio book. Here are some fun clips:
Science helps us be objective because of its limitations. For example, science does not address many questions such as "Why do I exist?" Answers to such questions can only come from within as an integration of the personal experiences and mental connections that shape our consciousness.
First they say that science can't answer larger metaphysical questions. But in the very next sentence they give us a scientifically exact formula for how to answer those same questions. If science can't speak to those issues, why should I listen to you when you open your mouth about them?
As Galileo's story illustrates, exploring a traditional view (read religiously based view) of the natural world from a scientific perspective is often misinterpreted as a violation of morality. As a group, scientists are no less moral than anyone else.
Scientists are no less moral than anyone else? Is that a scientific fact? Or an emotional plea? If that hypothesis were actually tested, maybe they would be found to be very immoral. I can't say for sure - but I can say for sure that the authors have no basis for making such a claim. Even the poster-children of scientific achievement - Watson and Crick - are known to have immorally plagiarized some of their data.