August 4, 2006
July 20, 2006
The BBC News reported on a British-Austrian study whose goal was to determine whether a mature cloned human being would consider himself to be an “individual.” What did the researchers conclude? They concluded that a cloned human being would consider himself to be an individual. Wow! It’s a good thing we did this study! I mean, who would have guessed it!?!?!
How did they come to this amazing conclusion, you ask? They interviewed identical twins (a.k.a. natural clones) to see how they perceived their individuality given the fact that they are genetically identical to their sibling. To everyone’s utter amazement they discovered that twins see themselves as two different individuals! (I thought they wore the same clothes because they thought they were the same person…silly me!) Since clones are little more than “delayed twins” it stands to reason that clones would see themselves as individuals as well.
Was this study really necessary? Did we need a study to know the answer to this question? Were the personal interviews really required? Does anyone doubt that twins see themselves as individual persons, and function as individual persons? I am being a little sarcastic here, but this study deserves the ridicule. I find it troubling on a couple of levels.
First, it demonstrates how study-happy we are. Dennis Prager often remarks that “studies say” is the liberals’ equivalent to religious conservatives’ “the Bible says.” It is the secular Bible if you will. He also notes how our culture (particularly the college educated) puts more faith in studies than common sense. For example, studies apparently show that a mom and dad are not necessary for optimal child development, and yet this contradicts common sense. While studies are valuable in many areas, they are not always needed before drawing conclusions. This is one of those areas. Our common experience and knowledge is enough to answer the question at hand. We no more needed this study to determine whether cloned human beings would consider themselves individuals than we need a study to determine if human beings enjoy pleasure. I don’t need to interview 1000 people to know they do. It is common sense.
Second, I have a hunch that these researchers knew exactly what they would “find” before they engaged in this study. The reason for the study was not to discover the answer to the question, but to provide a scientific basis (“studies say…”) and authority for alleviating people’s fear of cloning human beings. In other words, the study was intended for political, rather than research purposes. Geneticist Robin Lovell-Badge, of the Medical Research Council’s National Institute for Medical Research in London, made some comments that seem supportive of my hypothesis. He said, “Human reproductive cloning is not safe and should not be attempted with current knowledge. In my opinion, there are no strong reasons for even attempting it. But this interesting study…, although small, reveals how we should not have any prejudiced feelings about the idea of genetically identical individuals living amongst us.” That’s a big “but”! (no pun intended) In other words “we shouldn’t do it at this point in time, but if and when we do it people should not think clones are freaks.” He understands that this study is preparing us to think correctly about what is likely to come in the future.
July 20, 2006
Below you will find several posts evaluating the claims made by advocates of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). I never cease to be amazed at the blatant misinformation being given to the public in this area. Unfortunately it can’t be blamed on ignorance, because many of those who are supplying it are medical professionals such as William Neaves. These posts will quote the individual, and then offer a biological and logical critique.
In the May 5, 2004 publication of the St. Louis Post Dispatch retired Senator Jack Danforth wrote:
The proposal to criminalize cell regeneration research calls for a choice between two understandings of human life. On one hand, we have the millions of people who suffer from ALS, Alzheimer’s, juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries and cancer – and the loved ones who care for them and suffer by their sides. On the other hand, we have tiny bundles of unfertilized cells existing in Petri dishes. Supporters of the legislation should explain to the afflicted and their loved ones why they care more about those cell bundles than they do about the people.
As with many in the pro-ESCR camp Danforth claims embryos have no value because they are “tiny.” What does their size have to do with it? Does the fact that we are large bundles of cells make us more valuable? Clearly not! Size is not morally relevant.
He is simply wrong to say we have “tiny bundles of unfertilized cells existing in Petri dishes.” They are embryos. Since at this point in time no one has been able to clone a human embryo, the only way embryonic stem cells can exist in a Petri dish is if they were extracted from a fertilized embryo. Even if these embryos were not produced by fertilization because they were cloned, the fact would remain that the product is the same: a human embryo. Either Danforth is biologically ignorant, or purposely deceptive. He is splitting hairs for political purposes. His statement makes as much sense as saying “If you were not delivered in a hospital you were not born.” In the same way that the location of your birth does not determine if you were born, the means by which you came into existence (fertilization, cloning) does not determine your status as a valuable human being.
Last but not least, Danforth committed the same error committed by William Neaves, Robert Bailey, and others, when he refers to embryos as a bundle of cells. They are no mere bundle of cells, but a whole human organism actively directing its own growth towards maturation according to its own kind.
July 20, 2006
William Neaves, PhD, former Dean of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and current President of the Stowers Institute, described cloning as follows:
SCNT [somatic cell nuclear transfer, a.k.a. cloning] is the laboratory procedure that can lead to long sought advances in regenerative medicine. It introduces a nucleus from an adult body cell (somatic cell) into the cytoplasm of an enucleated egg, where the genes of the donor cell are induced to recapitulate the earliest steps in development. The early stem cells produced by this procedure have the ability to differentiate into any type of cell or tissue in the adult body.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>
While Mr. Neaves described the cloning process with great clarity, he failed to mention one very important fact: what the process of SCNT produces. Cloning produces a new human individual. Why leave that fact out? Because it does not fare well for the political agenda of the Stowers Institute. But this is just one casualty among many in his war against biological truth in pursuit of scientific advancement. The rest of his article is filled with many other misrepresentations and scientific distortions.
For example he writes, “Other opponents of SCNT express concern that it creates human life only to destroy it for research purposes. In fact, no new life is created by SCNT. It works entirely with the ordinary body cells of an already-living person. It no more creates human life than does growing someone’s skin cells in tissue culture.” In a certain sense he is correct: no new life is created. No new life is ever created. Life is a continuum. It began thousands, if not millions of years ago and has never ceased since. But that is not the sense in which Neaves is claiming “no new life is created.” He wants to assert that no new individual human being has been created by SCNT, but the field of embryology is definitive that it has. If the clone was placed in an environment suitable for continued growth—rather than being killed for its stem cells—it would mature according to its kind, resulting in a bouncing baby boy are girl nine months later.
Neaves also makes the mistake of confusing parts with wholes when he compares the “product” of SCNT to culturing skin cells. They are very different. An embryo is a person because it is a unitary whole; a “self-integrating organism capable of directing its own maturation as a member of the human species.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–> Somatic cells such as skin cells, however, are mere parts of a larger whole, unitary organism. Embryos will actively develop themselves into a mature human being if provided the proper environment to do so, whereas somatic cells can only replicate themselves for the survival of the larger organism to which they belong.
While both skin cells and the “product” created by SCNT contain human DNA, they are qualitatively different. The presence of human DNA—while sufficient to demonstrate that an entity is human—is not sufficient to demonstrate that it is an individual human being. Human value is not derived from the mere presence of human DNA in a cell, but to the unitary organism itself to which the cell belongs. We know something is an individual human being because it has an intrinsic ability to direct its own activity/development towards maturation. Somatic cells do not have this ability, so while they are human, they are not individual human beings, and do not possess the same moral quality as somatic cells. While somatic cells and embryos both contain DNA, the latter is qualitatively different from somatic cells because it already is an individual human being, while the other is not. As Dianne Irving wrote:
There is quite a difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess ‘human life’ and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual ‘human being.’… A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human LIFE, but they are not human BEINGS – they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman’s uterus, they would simply rot.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–>
He continues with his misleading and disingenuous claims when he writes:
Some critics of SCNT ask if the stem cells generated by SCNT are no different than those created by fertilization. They worry that the blastocyst generated by fertilization is indistinguishable from the blastocyst resulting from SCNT. In fact, there is a profound difference between the two. A blastocyst formed after fertilization contains a new and unique combination of genes contributed equally by the sperm of the father and the egg of the mother. A blastocyst resulting from SCNT contains only the same genes of the person who donated the body cell nucleus used in the procedure.
The only thing “profound” here is Mr. Neaves ability to duck the objection. The distinction Neaves makes between a fertilized and cloned embryo is valid, but not morally relevant, and not logically relevant to the objection raised. His opponents are arguing that there is no qualitative difference between a blastocyst produced by fertilization and a blastocyst produced by SCNT. Neaves completely ignores the argument by changing the subject to genetic differences. This shift will not work because the genetic differences between fertilized and cloned embryos are scientifically and morally irrelevant. Let me address each in turn.
The genetic differences are scientifically irrelevant because they do not change what the “things” in question are. The only genetic difference between cloned and fertilized embryos is the source of their genes, not the kind or number. Humans produced by fertilization receive their genes from two pre-existing humans, whereas humans produced by cloning receive their genes from one pre-existing human. But the source of the genes is inconsequential to the central question: What is it? Since cloned embryos and fertilized embryos both have a full set of human chromosomes, and they both possess the intrinsic potential to actively develop themselves toward maturation as a whole human being, they are biologically equivalent. To see that a cloned embryo is just as human as a fertilized embryo one need only consider the genetic source of the cloned embryo: a human being. If the “parent’s” cell was fully human, would its clone not be fully human as well? Of course!
The genetic differences are morally irrelevant as well. Whether the newly created embryo is a genetic twin of an existing human being, or the creation of a completely unique human being through fertilization, it is irrelevant to their ontological and moral status as human beings. To see this one need only consider the case of identical twins. Of the two siblings, one was fertilized while the other was naturally cloned from its sibling. Would Neaves argue that the cloned sibling is qualitatively different from its fertilized sibling because the latter “contains a new and unique combination of genes contributed equally by the sperm of the father and the egg of the mother” while the former “contains only the same genes” of the newly fertilized embryo? Of course not! So how can he claim there is a “profound difference” between fertilized and cloned embryos in the lab if the only difference between natural cloning (twinning) and artificial cloning (SCNT) is the amount of time separating the creation of the clone from the fertilized embryo. He can’t. His argument is smoke in mirrors. The simple fact of the matter is that having identical genes to someone else does not make you non-human or rob you of your moral value. The “profound difference” Neaves offers is neither profound, nor relevant to the debate.
He goes on to say, “SCNT does not entail fertilization of an egg with a sperm. It does not involve conception of a new human life. Instead, it awakens the developmental potential in the genome of cells from a person conceived years ago.” Obviously cloning does not entail fertilization (because this refers to a specific method of producing a human being, and thus SCNT cannot be considered fertilization by definition), but what determines the presence of a human being is not how it came into existence, but rather what it is that came into existence. What comes into existence by fertilization is identical to what comes into existence by cloning. Both cloning and fertilization result in a new, individual human being. It is true that SCNT “awakens the developmental potential in the genome of cells from a person conceived years ago,” but in doing so it begins the creation of a new person.
Again he writes:
Another objection to SCNT arises from people who fear it will be misused to clone human beings. If a blastocyst resulting from SCNT were placed in the uterus of a foster mother instead of remaining in a petrie [sic] dish, it is theoretically possible that it might undergo embryonic and fetal development leading to the birth of a genetic clone of the donor of the cell nucleus used in the procedure. This is reproductive cloning, and no legitimate biomedical scientist would countenance attempting such an inappropriate act with human cells. Scientists around the world have deplored any suggestion of using SCNT to clone people.
Theoretically possible? It has already been done. True, it has been with animals, but it is no less possible with humans. Humans are simply more biologically complicated than many of the animals we have cloned, which has impeded our ability to clone ourselves to date. But Neaves acts as if the possibility is science fiction, and he is only considering the logical possibility of it.
Neaves uses the same ploy many others do when he tries to distinguish cloning a human for the purposes of birth from cloning a human for purposes of destructive research by calling the former “reproductive cloning” (contrasted to “therapeutic cloning”). The biological fact of the matter is that all cloning is reproductive in nature. The act of cloning is completed upon a successful nuclear transfer that is then stimulated to fuse and begin growing. While scientists may intend for some clones for one purpose and other clones for a different purpose, and employ terminology to distinguish the two purposes, it is wrong to portray the difference in terminology to indicate a difference in ontology. That distinction is pure fiction, and those who perpetuate it ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Even his illustrated graph is deceptive. While I cannot reproduce it here, I would recommend that you access it at the link above. He shows how the early development of the “product” (he leaves it unnamed in the graph) created by fertilization, and the early development of an product created by cloning are the same. But then he says of the fertilized product: “If blastocyst is implanted into a uterus, embryonic development begins.” Of the cloned product he says: “If inner cell mass is placed in culture these cells will multiply to produce stem cells that can replace damaged cells in the body.” Both claims are false.
Regarding the first, being inside a uterus does not begin embryonic development. Embryonic development begins at the creation of the embryo. While embryonic development will eventually stop if the embryo is not placed in a uterus (because it will die), being placed in a uterus does not instantiate embryonic development.
Regarding the second, the inner cell mass consists of stem cells—it does not create them. Culturing these stem cells will result in their further multiplication, but they existed prior to the culturing.
<!–[endif]–> <!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>William B. Neaves, PhD, “Stem Cells from Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer: Research to Unlock the Body’s Potential for Self-Repair” in Missouri Medicine, Jan-Feb 2005, Vol. 102, No. 1; available from http://www.stowers-institute.org/MediaCenter/docs/NeavesSomaticCellFeature.pdf; Internet; accessed 19 July 2006.
[2]<!–[endif]–>Patrick Lee and Robert George, “Reason, Science, and Stem Cells”; available from http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-george072001.shtml; Internet, accessed 30 September 2004.
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–>Diane Irving, “When Do Human Beings Begin?: ‘Scientific’ Myths and Scientific Facts”; available from http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm; Internet; accessed 09 February 2005.
July 20, 2006
The National Institutes of Health defines “inner cell mass” as follows: “the cluster of cells inside the blastocyst. These cells give rise to the embryo and ultimately the fetus.” This is false. The inner cell mass consists of embryonic stem cells. These cells do not “give rise to the embryo.” It is the other way around. The embryo gives rise to these cells. The embryo exists prior to the existence of the inner cell mass. These stem cells simply continue forming what came into existence several days earlier: a new human individual. It’s better to say it the way the NIH said it, however, because it makes people think the stem cells are being extracted from something that is not a human embryo.
July 20, 2006
Stowers Institute president and CEO William Neaves said, “You are working entirely with the genes of a person conceived years earlier. “You are not creating new life. You are not causing conception to occur. You are just reawakening the developmental potential that already resides in that individual’s [donor’s] genes.”
The same could be said of every human being! Every human being is composed of genes from persons conceived years earlier. Would anyone say the new baby, therefore, is not a new life? Of course not!
June 25, 2006
Greg Koukl’s lecture at the 2006 Master’s Series in Christian Thought was on the topic “Truth is a Strange Sort of Fiction: The Challenge from the Emergent Church.” It was a masterful presentation! He argued that truth and knowledge are essential to the enterprise of Biblical faith, and demonstrated this both Biblically and philosophically. What made it so profound was that He provided the philosophic underpinnings for what all of us know intuitively, explaining why it is that we know what we know. I would recommend you buy the 2+ hour lecture from www.str.org, but I would like to summarize some of the lecture for you here.
Koukl began by arguing that knowledge of the truth is fundamental to our daily survival. If we were not able to know the truth about the world with a high degree of accuracy we would not be able to survive more than a few hours.
Truth is a life or death matter, and people die for the truth all the time. People die for the truth of cancer when they don’t take their doctor’s advice seriously. They die for the truth of drunk driving when they underestimate the power of alcohol to impair their driving abilities. They die for the truth of inertia and mass when they cross the street without looking both ways before crossing. In all these instances people actually die, not for the truth, but because they don’t have the truth. They die because they have false beliefs about important things. Not only must we know the truth, but we must act on that truth if we hope to survive.
Belief
While knowledge of the truth is necessary for survival, what does it mean to say we know something? At the very least it means you believe it is so; i.e. it accurately describes reality. That’s why it makes no sense to say “I believe X, but I’m not saying it’s true” as do so many postmodern thinkers. To say you believe something is to say you think you are right in your belief. If that is not what is meant the statement becomes entirely vacuous and meaningless.
Could our beliefs be mistaken? Yes. That’s why it takes more than merely believing something for it to be true. But at the very least to say you believe something is to say you think it is true, even if your belief turns out to be false.
Why should we believe anything (to be true)? For good reasons (justification). Justification comes in degrees. When the level of justification rises to the level of “beyond reasonable doubt” we can rightly claim to know something even though our level of justification does not reach certainty.
Truth
What is truth? Truth is when your statement corresponds to the way the world really is. It is a relationship between something in the mind of a knowing subject and the objective world. What makes the belief true is the objective world. Reality, then, is the truth maker. Something is not true simply because we believe it to be true.
The Relationship of Knowledge to Faith
Knowledge is critical to the faith project because faith is active trust in what we know to be true. If we do not know what is true (what corresponds to the way the world really is), or cannot know what is true (according to postmodernism), we cannot exercise faith in it. Since knowledge is the basis for our active trust, if we cannot have knowledge we cannot have Biblical faith.
Does knowledge save by itself? No. You can know medicine X will heal you, but if you stop there you will die. An extra step is needed: active trust in that knowledge.
Does faith save by itself? No. Muslims have active trust, but their faith is in the wrong object. Trust can be misplaced. Salvation obtains only when active trust is combined with accurate knowledge. If there is no truth/knowledge (or if we cannot know what the truth is) there can be no saving faith, and if there is no saving faith there can be no Christianity! That is why postmodernism (including the Emergent Church which has adopted postmodern epistemology) and Christianity are philosophically incompatible.
June 21, 2006
I just finished reading Wesley J. Smith’s testimony before the CA Senate Judiciary Committee regarding AB 651: a bill that would legalize euthanasia in CA (the second attempt for passage in two years).
I must say that this was one of the best summary arguments against euthanasia I have ever read. I would highly recommend that you read it. It won’t take more than 15 minutes or so. This issue is one that is not going to go away. Greater numbers of people are accepting the morality of euthanasia, so we had better prepare ourselves for this cultural battle.
For those of you who are not familiar with Wesley J. Smith, he is a lawyer and bioethicist who is a legal and literary advocate against embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia. His extensive qualifications are listed at the end of the testimony. I also have a link to his blog on my site titled “Secondhand Smoke.”
June 14, 2006
David Darling of the SETI Institute (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) wrote an article on http://www.space.com entitled “Of Faith and Facts: Is SETI a Religion?” to respond to charges that it is a religion. In his attempt to demonstrate how the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence is not a religious endeavor Darling offered what he believes to be the criteria for something to be properly identified as a religion, and then showed how SETI does not meet those criteria. He wrote:
Religions are characterized by two factors: worship—in other words, some system of devotion directed toward one or more omniscient and supranatural beings—and faith in the absence of material evidence. SETI qualifies as a religion on neither of these counts. Unless I’m very much mistaken no SETI researcher offers prayers to the subject of his or her quest…. … [W]e already have material evidence for intelligence in the universe: it consists of the brains you’re using right now to assimilate these thoughts. Unlike a religion which relies on pure faith that a god exists, we don’t need faith that intelligence and technology exist.
While I agree with Darling that SETI is not a religion proper, I would argue that it is a faith commitment based on unproven presuppositions and lacking in empirical support similar to many religious beliefs (this does not take away from the fact that SETI’s methods of design detection are indeed scientific). But this is not the purpose of my post. I am more interested in Darling’s view of what constitutes religion, or more particularly religious faith.
According to Darling faith is “the absence of material evidence,” also termed “pure faith,” a.k.a. blind faith. This is the typical “confidence without evidence” view of faith shared by so many people, both religious and non-religious, and unfortunately Christian and non-Christian.
While this may be the view of faith in some religions, by no means is this the Christian view of faith. Christian faith is not a blind leap, wishful thinking, or a commitment of the will in the absence of reason, but rather a carefully considered and reasoned judgment in reality. Faith is a persuasion based on reasonable evidence. Faith involves placing trust in what we have reason to believe is true. We believe, not in spite of the evidence, but because of the evidence. This is the Christian view.
That is why the idea that science and theology are in two different domains (or magisteria) that do not, and should not intersect is utterly opposed to Christian theology. On the Christian view God is the creator of the universe and He has left us evidence of His involvement with creation, thus theological truth and scientific truth should intersect if the Judeo-Christian religion is true. But if purely natural, blind, unguided, unintelligent, and purposeless processes are the best explanation for how the universe both came into being and came to exist in its present form, Christianity is shown to be false. Why? Because Christianity makes certain truth claims that can be falsified or verified by science. Christianity is not a religion based on wishful thinking. It is not a religion built on philosophical teachings that merely prescribe a certain way of life. No, Christianity is a religion whose God acts in history. It is based on certain historical truths. If science and history can demonstrate that God did not do in history what Scripture says He did (such as creating the cosmos or raising Jesus from the dead), then the foundation of Christianity crumbles, and the Christian religion along with it. Since the God of our Scriptures also claims to be the Creator of our universe and Lord over history, what we find in one domain (science) affects the other (religion). So contra Darling, Christianity is an evidence-based religion that rejects a “confidence without evidence” view of faith. While it is true that faith lacks absolute certainty, faith is not blind.
p.s. after completing this post I read an interview between Deborah Solomon of the New York Times and the pre-eminent evolutionary philosopher and ardent atheist, Daniel Dennett in which the same “faith is blind” line is given. Solomon asks Dennett, “So what can you tell us about God?
Dennett responded, “Certainly the idea of a God that can answer prayers and whom you can talk to, and who intervenes in the world – that’s a hopeless idea. There is no such thing.”
Solomon responded in turn, “Yet faith, by definition, means believing in something whose existence cannot be proved scientifically. If we knew for sure that God existed, it would not require a leap of faith to believe in him.” Not only does Solomon believe that faith cannot be verified, but that if it were it would cease to be faith. Furthermore, Solomon creates an all-or-nothing dichotomy when it comes to faith and proof. Either one believes something without any evidence whatsoever, or they have so much evidence that it cannot be doubted. Such is not the case when it comes to religious faith, or even knowledge in general for that matter.
June 13, 2006
Some like to dismiss the issue of religion by claiming we can’t know if God exists or not. I have always found this to be a strange position to take because it is intellectually indefensible. How might we respond to such an assertion?
The best weapon of any apologist is the question. The first question we might ask is one of clarification: “Are you saying it is logically impossible to know whether God exists, or are you just saying it is practically impossible?” Relatively few would opt for the former. Most recognize that there is nothing inherently contradictory between the existence of God and our ability to know of His existence.
The second question to ask is one of justification: How do you know that, and why do you believe it to be true? I doubt you will get a coherent response. Most people who make this assertion have not given much thought to the matter. It’s not as though they have thoroughly investigated the question, and after having completed an exhaustive study of the matter were forced to conclude that religious knowledge is simply impossible. No. It’s a pat answer that usually works to silence those who would try to convert them, and gives them the justification they need for intellectual laziness and/or ungodliness. If we can’t know whether God exists, they reason, there is no reason to explore the issue. [Pascal’s Wager is enough to show the fallacy underlying this sort of thinking. It confuses epistemology with ontology. Even if we could not know for certain (epistemology) whether God exists, the fact remains that He either does or He doesn’t (ontology). The possibility that He does is reason enough to consider the question, particularly when our post-death existence might be affected by our beliefs about the answer. See my April 24th post entitled Pascal’s Wager Under Attack for further reading.]
The person who believes no one can know whether God exists presupposes only two possible sets of reality: (1) A world in which there is no God; (2) A world in which there is a God, but one who does not reveal Himself to man. Neither state of affairs would afford us the ability to answer the question of God’s existence. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it sets up a false dichotomy. There is at least one more possibility: (3) A world in which there is a God who reveals Himself to man. If (3) is a logical possibility then it would be possible to know if God exists. To answer the question of God’s existence all we would need is a legitimate revelation of Himself to man. This is where the intellectual leg-work comes in. Many claim to have received revelation from god(s). These claims must be examined. Their truth-value must be based on the quantity and quality of the evidence. If there is good reason to believe that one or more of these supposed revelations is indeed from god(s), then we can possess knowledge of God existence.
For further reading see my article entitled How to be a Good Agnostic
June 10, 2006
“Humble : bethinkers know that our understanding of some truths is fallible, and will not press a point beyond what the evidence allows.”
Being less sure doesn’t make you humble. That’s just a plain fact. In the past, humility was the opposite of pride. But now it has become the opposite of conviction. Being sure of something is now often considered a character flaw. There three basic reactions to being challenged. Reaction one is to turn the volume up. For example Fundamentalists seemed to have more “certainties” than they could every justify from Scripture. The next reaction is to turn the volume right down. This might seem humble, however, the danger might be that we overreact with equally arrogant assertions of uncertainty when God has clearly spoken. The third and final reaction is to turn the volume to a level so that you can actually hear the conversation or challenge and interact with it, but while you still keep the music on.
In the wake of all of this we should ponder carefully this question – Do we have the humility to doubt ourselves while having the courage to witness to the truth as it has been revealed?
June 8, 2006
The slippery slope of euthanasia is slipping as projected in England, Europe’s hotspot for bioethical immorality. Len Doyal, professor of medical ethics at Queen Mary University of London, argues that physicians should be able to actively euthanize severely impaired patients whose lives they deem no longer worth living, without their consent. He recognizes that this is already going on in the form of dehydration (as in the Terri Schiavo case), but argues that this can cause a “slow and distressing death.” To alleviate this distress Doyal proposes that the British government legalize the active euthanizing of these patients so that they die immediately.
This is important for several reasons. First, it is the doctors—not the patient or family—who decide whether the patient’s care should be ended and their life terminated. Secondly, this is no mere passive euthanasia where medical care is simply removed and the person dies from their disease. This is the active killing of human beings. And for the record we are not talking about brain dead humans being kept alive only artificially by machines; we are talking about severely damaged humans (suffering from severe cognitive dysfunction) being intentionally killed because their lives are deemed invaluable by the medical community. Thirdly, I find it interesting that during the Terri Schiavo fiasco doctors were arguing that people like Terri would not feel the pain of dehydration, and yet Doyal admits that such a death can be slow and distressing. Which is it?
HT: Wesley J. Smith
June 8, 2006
Albert Einstein predicted and Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe is expanding. What I find so amazing is that the universe is not expanding into space, but is expanding space itself. Space is continually being created as the universe expands into what was previously nothingness. While it is well recognized that the singularity (the mathematical point at which the spatio-temporal material universe came into being) “created” space from nothingness, it is not so well recognized that even now new space continues to emerge “from” nothingness. What is space expanding into if not space? What does the border of space look like? What is on the other side?
These questions are similar to asking what God was doing before the beginning of time. There can be no such thing. It is a categorical mistake to even pose the question. Likewise, there is nothing on the other side of the border of space. It’s not empty space, but the absence of space. What does the absence of space look like? My spatio-temporal brain can’t even begin to comprehend it.
Tune in tomorrow for a discussion of space and God’s relationship to it.
May 27, 2006
Is Darwinian evolution—the idea that unguided, natural processes are solely responsible for the existence of the universe—consistent with the religious belief that God created the universe? It is commonly believed that they are, but such a belief is rationally incredible.
If unguided, natural processes are wholly adequate to account for the entirety of the universe, God’s causal activity is excluded, and His existence unnecessary. Are we to believe that if God exists He sat idly by, thoroughly surprised to find time, space, and matter popping into existence from nothing? While Darwinian evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of God, we must admit that if He does exist (in the words of Phillip Johnson) “He has never found gainful employment.”
Nancy Pearcey echoed similar sentiments: “If natural causes working on their own are capable of producing everything that exists, then the obvious implication is that there’s nothing left for a Creator to do. He’s out of a job. And if the existence of God no longer serves any explanatory or cognitive function, then the only function left is an emotional one: Belief in God is reduced to an escape hatch for people afraid to face modernity.” [1]
This truth was brought to my mind again recently when I was re-reading Judge Jones’ decision in Kitzmiller vs. Dover (regarding the so-called “teaching” of Intelligent Design in Dover, PA, in which he ruled that ID was religious and hence unconstitutional to teach in public schools). He made a comment that was just plain silly: “Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.” (emphasis mine) Not only does Darwinian evolution conflict with belief in God, but it absolutely rules out the existence of a divine creator by the very definition of the word. If the divine creator isn’t doing any creating then the concept of a divine creator becomes meaningless! If divine creators don’t have to create to be creators then maybe human judges like Jones don’t have to make judgments to be judges. Oh the absurdity!
There are some evolutionists who are much more honest about the implications of Darwinism. For example, the eminent evolutionist, William Provine said “evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” [2] In another place he wrote:
[Y]ou have to check your brains at the church-house door if you take modern evolutionary biology seriously. The implications of modern evolutionary biology are inescapable, just as the conclusion of an immense universe was inescapable when we shifted from a cozy geocentric view to the heliocentric conception of our solar system. Stated simply, evolutionary biology undermines the fundamental assumptions underlying ethical systems in almost all cultures, Western civilization in particular. The frequently made assertion that evolutionary biology and the Judeo-Christian traditions are fully compatible is false. The destructive implications of evolutionary biology extend far beyond the assumptions of organized religion to a much deeper and more pervasive belief, held by the vast majority of people: that non-mechanistic organizing design or forces are somehow responsible for the visible order of the physical universe, biological organisms and human moral order. [3]
And again,
Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless. Called Deism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and considered equivalent to atheism then, it is no different now. A God or purposive force that merely starts the universe or works thought the laws of nature has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism. [4]
Evolutionary biologist, Greg Graffin wrote:
The most important feature of evolutionary biology is its integrated view of humankind’s place in nature that easily lends itself to a deeply satisfying metaphysics based entirely on materialist principles. This provision, coupled with the observation that theology has lost so much of its appeal to the average citizen, leads to the controversial conclusion that, in the modern world, Naturalism is a substitute for, and provides all the benefits of, traditional religion. If the naturalists have their day, theism is effectively dead.
We still live in a world, however, that is predominantly theist, particularly in America where 95% of the citizens believe in God (according to the Gallup Poll of 2001). In this environment, many evolutionary biologists are reluctant to carry the implications of Darwinism to their logical extent. Theists vote, pay the taxes, and support the research institutions where most naturalists work. Theists do not appreciate hearing the vulgar truth of evolutionary theory, that mankind is no fallen angel, has no immortal soul, nor free will, and was not specially created. So what is a naturalist evolutionary biologist to do in this climate? [5]
I hope our culture will wisen up to the notion that Darwinism and Christianity are not compatible. For further reading see my article entitled “Theistic Evolution: The Illegitimate Marriage of Theism and Evolution”.
[1]Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Book, 2004), 154.
[2]William Provine, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life.” Slide from Prof. William B. Provine’s 1998 “Darwin’s Day” address, “Darwin Day” website, University of Tennessee Knoxville TN, 1998) [3]William Provine, “Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics.” Science, Technology, and Social Progress, Steven Goldman, ed. 1989, pp. 253-254.
[4]William Provine, review of Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution, by Edward J. Larson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, 224 pp.), in Academe, January 1987, pp.51-52.
[5]http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/purpose.html#whatisit; Internet; accessed 6 January 2006.
May 23, 2006
Richard Dawkins of Oxford University wrote that “biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”[1] The appearance of design in the cosmos is so strong that Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) felt compelled to warn that “biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
The absurdity of such statements can be seen when we apply the logic to other areas of life. Can you imagine Crick’s advice being given to a car mechanic: “Mechanics must constantly keep in mind that what they see under the hood was not designed, but rather evolved.” Cars have the appearance of design because they are designed. Why should we believe anything different when it comes to the physical and biological worlds if they display the same tell-tale signs of design? Both contain specified and irreducibly complex systems, and the only known generator of such is intelligent designers.
The only reason to believe something different about the cosmos is an a priori commitment to philosophical and/or methodological naturalism. If you start off with the presupposition that there is no God (or if there is He is not involved with the universe) then it must be true that the appearance of design in our universe is only apparent, not real. But why should we believe God does not exist, or is not involved with our universe? These presuppositions must be defended before philosophical materialism should be taken seriously, and the random and purposeless evolution it supports.
If the world looks designed as Dawkins and Crick admit, why deny that it was indeed designed (it would be the simpler explanation)? What compelling evidence is there that would cause us to opt for a naturalistic explanation over some kind of theistic explanation? There is none! Only a predisposition to look for a naturalistic explanation that leaves God out. That’s why evolutionary theory is becoming less of a scientific theory and more of a philosophical (if not religious) dogma that cannot be questioned. That is why Darwinists all over the land are doing everything they can to run intelligent design theorists off the map. They can’t defend their philosophical viewpoint with solid empirical data so they resort to name calling and dismissals.
Darwinism has dominated science for the last 150 years, not because there is a plethora of evidence for the theory, but because the modern definition of science presupposes methodological materialism (you act as if the only thing that exists and is causally active in the world is matter), if not philosophical materialism itself (you actually believe nothing exists except the material world). If you arbitrarily define science as the pursuit of material causes, it should be no surprise that evolution will be the undisputed king of the scientific hill. By fiat definition it is the only game in town. That’s why the main thrust of the Intelligent Design movement has been to challenge the very definition of modern science itself, exposing the fact that it is presupposes philosophical materialism. If we have good reason to believe philosophical materialism is false (and we do), then much of the evolutionary theory comes crashing down with it like a house of cards in the wind.
The evolution vs. intelligent design debate is not a debate between science and religion or science and faith, but a debate over the very definition of science itself. It is a debate of science vs. science. Each side offers a competing scientific account of the physical world, but each driven by different philosophical presuppositions. May the best philosophy win!
[1]Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1987), 1.
[2]Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 138.
May 18, 2006
An obnoxious abortion advocate posted some rants on Scott Klusendorf’s Pro-Life Training blog asserting that we are not pro-life, but rather anti-choice. You can check out the full string here, but I wanted to post the heart of Scott’s response so you can see how a pro-lifer responds to the argument that we are opposed to choice. Scott wrote:
You next claim that Penner is anti-choice, but this, too, begs the question by assuming, without argument, that the unborn are not human. Should we be “pro-choice” on the question of men beating their wives? Parents torturing toddlers? Look, the abortion debate is not a dispute between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-choice. Let me be clear. I am vigorously “pro-choice” when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. I support a woman’s right to choose her own health care provider, to choose her own school, to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, to choose her own religion, and to choose her own career, to name a few. These are among the many choices that I fully support for the women of our country. But some choices are wrong, like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves. No, we shouldn’t be allowed to choose that. Hence, the real issue that separates you from me is the question “What is the unborn?” Until you address that issue with a compelling argument, you appeals to “choice” are nothing but question-begging rants.
You might want to read my short article entitled “Do You Support a Woman’s Right to Choose?” in which I argued in a similar fashion. My article goes into a little more detail and explains the tactical nature of this approach. Check it out.
May 16, 2006
Many people believe scientists have demonstrated that homosexuality is genetically determined. While scientists have proven no such thing, what if they did? What follows from such a discovery morally speaking, and what might follow from that legally speaking? Let me deal with each in turn.
What would the moral ramifications of such a discovery be? Would the existence of a gene that predisposed (if not determined) one towards same-sex attraction tell us whether homosexuality is morally good or morally bad? No, for two reasons. First, you can’t get a moral ought from an ontological is. What is, and what should be do not necessarily coincide. Just because it is the case (for the sake of argument) that homosexual attraction is genetic does not mean homosexual attraction is good and desirable.
Secondly, genes determine things we consider both good and bad. For example, genes code for colored eyes (good) and some forms of cancer (bad). This invites a question for the genetic reductionist: should homosexuality be viewed as a genetic disease like cancer, or should it be viewed as a genetic “good” like eye color? Even if we start with the presupposition that homosexuality is genetically determined it does not tell us whether the genes have determined something that is good or bad. Something more is needed to determine that, and that something more is ethics. That’s why any possible future discovery of a genetic link to homosexuality is morally irrelevant.
While the moral ramifications would be moot, what about the legal ramifications? The discovery that homosexuality is genetically determined could have severe legal ramifications that will have a great impact on the church’s ability to condemn homosexuality as a moral evil. If homosexuality is genetically determined on the same level as race or sex, then it could be considered a suspect class by the courts (suspect classes require the strictest level of Constitutional scrutiny). You can’t discriminate against a suspect class for the specific property that classifies them as a suspect class without feeling the weight of the law coming down on you.
If homosexuality is genetically determined on the same level that race and gender, then any discrimination against a homosexual because of his homosexuality could be considered equivalent to discriminating against a black man because of the color of his skin. In the same way that the latter would be racism and punishable by law, the former might be considered homophobic and punishable by law. This could prevent Christians from making moral judgments against homosexuality.
You say, “That would never happen in America!!” Really? Would a church face legal action if it used the Bible to promote racism? Yes (correct me if I’m wrong Andy). If the government can prosecute those who express certain religious views on the issue of race because it’s a suspect class, why couldn’t they prosecute those who express certain religious views on the issue of “sexual orientation” if it were also a suspect class? The fact that those who use the Bible to promote racism are misinterpreting the Bible is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that certain expressions of religious views are punishable by law because those expressions violate the law. If there is a law that says homosexuals are a protected class, any discrimination against them—whether religious or secular in nature—can be punished.
If I remember correctly, in Sweden a pastor cannot even read a passage from the Bible that condemns homosexuality. Freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression are being honed in by political correctness in the West. America is no exception to this trend. If we continue in the ideological vein we’re heading in this country, what’s happening in Sweden may be coming to a theater near you!
(Political commercial) How do we stop it? We vote! We are in the majority, and yet we are silent. The only way the majority can become captive to the minority in a democratic society is if the voting public stays home on election day. If you stay home on election day don’t be surprised if the world you walk out to the next day is a world you don’t want to be in. The world is ours for the making. Let’s make it right by making our voices heard to our representatives on issues that are of moral importance to us. Remember, we are the government!
May 16, 2006
If you have a half-hour check out the BBC interview with Greg Koukl, president of Stand to Reason. The interviewer was pretty fair, although her position on the matter was very clear. Greg, as always, was articulate, thoughtful, kind, and persuasive.
One part of the interview that caught my attention was when the interviewer (Carrie Gracie) quickly moved on when Greg started making too sense on the scientific aspect of this debate (9:25 to 13:02). Abortion-choice advocates know that science is the weakest link of their argument because science is clear in its affirmation that the unborn are human beings. That’s why they have to redirect the attention of the debate to a smoke-screen issue like the abstract and generic “choice.”
May 16, 2006
As another example of poor thinking consider the following story (thank you Max for bringing this to my attention).
The management group (One Management) of a senior apartment complex is banning a group of tenants from having Bible studies, singing hymns, and displaying nativity scenes in the common areas of the complex because they say it may violate the Fair Housing Act. Vice-president of One Management, Jenny Petri, described the rationale for the policy change as follows: “Allowing religious ceremonies or displays of religious items in the property’s common areas may create the appearance that Heritage Court prefers or limits one religion over another, or even that it prefers residents who are religious over those who are not. To comply with Fair Housing laws, Heritage Court must remain religiously neutral.”
So let me get this straight, to avoid the appearance of discrimination against any one particular religion they discriminate against all religions by banning all things religious from the common areas of the complex? In the name of religious neutrality they are being anything but neutral, and yet they fail to see how self-contradictory their policy is. To ensure religious freedom it is believed we must ban the expression of religion in the public square. Such is the deception of political correctness.
The rationale isn’t even legitimate. Allowing a group of Christians to practice their faith in the common areas of the complex does not discriminate against other religions. The only way discrimination would be involved is if the complex allowed Christians to use the common areas for religious purposes, but not other religious groups.
May 3, 2006
Evolutionist, Peter Ward, from Washington University, and Intelligent Design theorist, Stephen Meyer, of the Discovery Institute squared off in debate at Town Hall in Seattle on the topic of intelligent design. You can listen to the audio here. It reveals just how much the theory of evolution relies on dogma rather than empirical evidence. It was Meyer, not Ward who was willing to talk about the empirical science of it all. Check it out.
Theosophical Ruminations
Thinking to Believe 