October 9, 2006

Step aside Frankenstein, here comes Frankenbunny

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Cloning, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

I never ceased to be amazed at all of the scientific inaccuracies and spin the mainstream media is responsible for when reporting on embryonic stem cell research and cloning (and to a lesser extent, abortion).

This morning I read an article on This Is London about English researchers who are seeking to clone human embryos using rabbit eggs rather than human eggs. If successful, the resulting embryo would be a chimera: part human, part non-human. In this case it would be 99.9% human, .1% rabbit.

Not to make light of the moral issues involved with creating chimeras, but I can’t help to laugh when I think about what would happen if one of these cloned embryos was allowed to be born (rather than killing it within 14 days). Can you imagine what little Johnny would say in his 4th grade class when he has to research and report on his genealogy: “I am part English, part Italian, and part rabbit. My mom is the Cadbury bunny, my grandpa is Peter Cottontail, and my great grandpa is the Easter Bunny!

Humor aside, while creating chimeras has been going on for some time now, I find it odd how cavalier the reporting on it is. It is reported on as if there are no qualms about joining human and animals together. Maybe it’s because there is usually so little animal DNA involved (or the converse). The scary thing is that eventually scientists will start mixing more and more genetic info together so that it will be difficult to distinguish whether the chimera is human, animal, or something else. Right now scientists are simply getting the public comfortable with the practice in principle. Then, they will use the boil-the-frog strategy in which they will gradually and incrementally increase the mixing of DNA until they are finally able to achieve the levels of genetic mixing they really desire. The process will be slow enough that we—like a frog—won’t realize we’re being boiled in a pot of water.

But I digress. The reason I bring this article to your attention is to highlight what the article did not say, and the spin on what they did say.

What they did not say is that what these scientists want to do is clone human beings. As a general rule scientists and the media go to great lengths to avoid the “C” word, even if it means being intellectually dishonest and redefining established scientific definitions. The author did admit that what is being produced is an embryo (which is more than American media will usually admit), but s/he would not say how that embryo is being produced. S/he leaves it as the vague “create embryos.”

The article ends with these words: “The embryos will be allowed to grow for only 14 days, at which point they will be cells smaller than a pinhead.” Apart from the fact that this sentence seems to stop short of an actual finish by failing to note that they will be killed by the 14th day, and apart from the fact that this is a strange way to end an article, what is said is a common liberal tactic to devalue the life of that which they advocate killing. Why else comment on the size of the embryo? The presupposition is that since they are so small, they do not have value. How being small deprives one of value is never explained or defended. It is merely assumed, and merely asserted. The next time you hear somebody repeat this line, a good question to ask them is Exactly what size does one have to be before they become valuable and obtain the right to life? Chirp chirp chirp chirp.

 

October 6, 2006

Is Church Discipline an Invasion of Privacy?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Odds & Ends, Politics, Theology
[6] Comments 

If a church member commits adultery, and the elders enact church discipline via informing the congregation of their sin, is that an invasion of privacy? That’s the issue a couple of churches in Texas are facing since they have been sued by their congregants for doing just this.

Andy and Seni, I’d be interested to get your legal take on this.

This brings up an important matter: the proper interpretation of I Timothy 5:20–“Those guilty of sin must be rebuked before all, as a warning to the rest.” Many pastors understand this passage to mean they are to publicly rebuke saints for personal moral failure. Many use this passage as an excuse to publicly rebuke saints for violating certain pastoral standards as well. Does this verse give them authority to do either? The answer is a resounding NO! The context makes it abundantly clear that those to be rebuked are elders who sin. Consider the preceding verses:

Elders who provide effective leadership must be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. 5:18 For the scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The worker deserves his pay.” 5:19 Do not accept an accusation against an elder unless it can be confirmed by two or three witnesses. (5:17-19)

The reason elders are to be rebuked is because of their leadership role. Others are following them as they follow Christ. If they are not following Christ, those following them need to know. Furthermore, if the sin is hidden rather than publicly dealt with it opens the church up to the charge of mishandling and cover-up. Just ask the Catholic Church! But when it comes to non-elders it is a different story. According to Proverbs 10:12 “love covers all sins.” I Peter 4:8 says “love covers a multitude of sins.” Love seeks to hide the moral failures of the repentant, not make them public.

 

October 6, 2006

The MCSCRC’s cloning and stem cell inaccuracies

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Cloning, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures (MCSCRC), a cloning and embryonic stem cell research advocacy group, uses misinformation to persuade the Michigan public towards their agenda. For example, on their FAQ page for somatic cell nuclear transfer they responded as follows to the question, “What is somatic cell nuclear transfer?”:

 

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a laboratory procedure that creates embryos for use in stem cell research; sometimes referred to as “therapeutic cloning.” In SCNT, nuclear transfer is used for medical treatment or research. For example, nuclear transfer could be used to create a line of embryonic stem cells genetically identical to the donor. These embryonic stem cells could then be used to generate specialized cells that are transplanted into the patient to replace cells lost to injury or disease. When used in a medical treatment, this would ensure that the new cells would not face rejection by the patient’s immune system. Nuclear transfer also gives researchers the ability to create stem cell lines that carry genetic defects that cause inherited human diseases, allowing them to study the origin of these diseases and potentially to develop new treatments.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>

This is simply not true. SCNT is a laboratory procedure that creates human embryos, period. What scientists intend to do with the embryos created by SCNT is irrelevant. The MCSCRC is illegitimately incorporating scientists’ intentions into the definition of SCNT itself.

 

They are a little more honest when answering the question, “How does SCNT work?”

 

SCNT substitutes the nucleus of a somatic cell (which contains all the genetic information of the patient) for the nucleus of a donated egg that has not been fertilized. In cell culture, this customized egg is then coaxed with an electronic or chemical catalyst to develop into a zygote as if it had been fertilized. The zygote begins cell division and develops into a ball of cells called the morula and then into the blastocyst at approximately five days. The inner cell mass of the blastocyst is then removed to generate a pluripotent stem cell line. After the inner cell mass is removed, the blastocyst is no longer capable of further development.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–>

At least they indicate what the product is (zygote). Unfortunately, most people will not know what that is. And rather than calling it an embryo after the one-cell stage, they refer to it as a morula. It appears that they are trying to avoid the word “human” and “embryo” at all costs.

 

And don’t miss the euphemism for killing: “no longer capable of further development.”

 

The most disingenuous quote is when answering the question, “Can SCNT be used to clone humans?” They answer:

 

No. The purpose of SCNT is to find cures and therapies to treat human disease. SCNT awakens the natural capacity for self-repair that resides in a person’s genes. While SCNT has been the technique used to clone animals like “Dolly” the sheep, there is no evidence that it could also successfully clone a human due to the increased complexity of the human organism. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical communities in the United States is that human reproductive cloning should be banned.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–>

What a mess of a statement! In one sense they are right. Current technology has not advanced to the point where a human has been successfully cloned, but people all over the world are trying to do this very thing! But they contradict themselves. They say SCNT can’t be used to clone humans, and yet they say cloning humans should be banned. Why do so if SCNT is incapable of doing so? Obviously it can.

 

To say the purpose of SCNT is to find cures is absolutely false. The purpose of SCNT is to create new human beings asexually. What the creator of those human beings does with them afterwards is irrelevant to what the purpose of SCNT is in itself.

 

On their “Facts & Myth page” they answer the supposed myth that “cloning is cloning is cloning. It’s all the same.”

 

FACT: Not all cloning is the same. According to the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR), scientists do many kinds of cloning every day, most of which is commonly accepted. Cloning has allowed scientists to develop powerful new drugs and to produce insulin and useful bacteria in the lab. It also allows researchers to track the origins of biological weapons, catch criminals, and free innocent people. There’s a world of difference between reproductive cloning- something that should be banned right away – and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Therapeutic cloning is the transplanting of a patient’s own DNA into an unfertilized egg in order to grow stem cells that could cure devastating diseases. Reproductive cloning is the use of cloning technology to create a child. GPI, along with leading scientists and most Americans, oppose reproductive cloning.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[4]<!–[endif]–>

What exactly is the “world of difference” between reproductive and therapeutic cloning? There is none! It’s the same process, the same result. The only difference is what the scientist does with the clone once SCNT is complete.

 

They go on to tackle this supposed myth: “Therapeutic cloning is a slippery slope that leads to reproductive cloning. There is no dividing line between the two forms of cloning.”

FACT: Therapeutic cloning produces stem cells, not babies. With therapeutic cloning, there is no fertilization of the egg by sperm, no implantation in the uterus and no pregnancy. Dr. Harold Varmus, the former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a Nobel laureate, says there is a profound distinction between cloning with the intent of making a human being and research cloning to help understand and treat life-threatening diseases and conditions. Implantation into a womb is the clear, bright line that divides reproductive and non-reproductive technologies. Without implantation, no new human life is possible. This is where society can and must draw the line.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[5]<!–[endif]–>

This is laughable! There are so many word games being played here I don’t know where to begin. The MCSCRC recognizes that most people use “baby” to refer to a post-natal human being. By choosing to use that word they can say cloning does not produce babies. But they know that’s now what people are concerned with. People are concerned that cloning produces a new human being. And they should be because it does! Besides, therapeutic cloning does not produce stem cells. It produces human zygotes who begin to develop in the same way every one of us developed at that stage in our lives.

 

The fact that there is no fertilization involved in cloning (by definition) is irrelevant. Both fertilization and cloning produce the exact same product: a human zygote. The fact that scientists fail to implant the clone into a uterus does not change what it is. And to say “without implantation no new human life is possible” is simply false. Obviously the embryo from which the scientists are extracting stem cells are alive, and their genetic signature identifies them as human. In fact, that’s why scientists are interested in their stem cells.

 

 

 

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>1<!–[endif]–>Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures, “Facts &amp; Myth”; available from http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/faq-somatic.html; Internet; accessed 22 September 2006.

2Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures, “Facts &amp; Myth”; available from http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/faq-somatic.html; Internet; accessed 22 September 2006.

3Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures, “Facts &amp; Myth”; available from http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/faq-somatic.html; Internet; accessed 22 September 2006.

4Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures, “Facts &amp; Myth”; available from http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/factsmyths.html; Internet; accessed 22 September 2006.

5Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures, “Facts &amp; Myth”; available from http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/factsmyths.html; Internet; accessed 22 September 2006.

<!–[endif]–>

 

October 5, 2006

Polygamists Sue to Legalize Polygamy

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Same-sex Marriage
[11] Comments 

Utah polygamists have filed a lawsuit against the state of Utah for refusing to issue a marriage license for G. Lee Cook to marry “J. Bronson” on the basis that he already had one wife. The first attempt to have their case heard was turned down by a federal judge, but on 9-25-06 the 10th U.S. District Court of Appeals accepted it.

The Cook’s attorney, Brian Barnard, is arguing that the ban on polygamy is unconstitutional because it targets a specific religion—Mormonism—and it prohibits the free expression of personal religious beliefs.

Regarding the former, the law is neutral in this regard. No one in this country—Mormon or not—can marry more than one person. Regarding the latter, I quote Barnard:

“The sincere and deeply held religious beliefs of J. Bronson, D. Cook and G. Lee Cook are that the doctrine of plural marriage, i.e., a man having more than one wife, is ordained of God and is to be encouraged and practiced.”

 

“Utah’s criminalization of religious polygamy, even if the crime is rarely prosecuted, brands plaintiffs as criminals and sanctions public and private discrimination based on plaintiffs’ religious based choice of marital relationship.”

 

In the first statement Barnard is assuming that because the practice is rooted in religious belief it cannot be properly legislated against according to the First Amendment. But this proves too much. Such a principle would turn the free exercise clause into silly putty, requiring us to give legal sanction to any practice someone labels as religious. What if a religion existed (or was invented) in which molesting children was commanded by their gods? Would we have to allow that practice based on the First Amendment? Of course not! The free-exercise clause has limitations. Just what those limits are, unfortunately, is not so clear cut. One thing is clear: societies govern the range of behaviors they will promote, accept, and tolerate, and those they will prohibit. The grounds for determining which are which is our moral intuitions and persuasions. The means is the voting booth.

As a democratic nation, the collective moral judgments of the voting majority will be enshrined into law (unless you live in CA where the legislature doesn’t care what the people want, and most people are so consumed with their plastic lives that they don’t realize or care what their representatives are doing in Sacramento!). Why should the collective moral judgment of the majority be set aside to make room for a religious behavior that the majority of the citizens find immoral? If a democratic nation cannot pass laws prohibiting immoral behavior when the practitioners of those behaviors claim it is religious, then we do not have a democracy. The majority would be subject to the minority, required to allow any religious practice no matter how much it goes against our moral sensibilities, and how damaging it may be to society. That cannot be. In the same way we can prohibit “religious” child molestation without violating the First Amendment on the grounds that it is morally wrong, we can prohibit religious polygamy on moral grounds as well.

His second statement is not much better. Of course those who break the law are criminals, and will be branded as such! Is he really suggesting that we change the law so his clients can avoid being viewed and treated as criminals? What if bank robbers argued this way: “The criminalization of theft brands bank robbers as criminals, and sanctions public and private discrimination based on our choice of employment. To avoid this distasteful situation, we propose theft be made legal.”

Of particular interest is the legal justification he offers for overturning the current ban on polygamy. Referring to a 2003 case in which the Supreme Court overturned Texas’s anti-sodomy laws (Lawrence v. Texas) Barnard wrote, “The [Supreme Court] found no compelling state interest in criminalizing homosexual sodomy based on a long history of states and/or a majority of society finding the practice immoral. Similarly, the state of Utah can offer no compelling justification for criminalizing polygamy.”

Two things should be noted. First, many social conservatives predicted that liberals would use the Lawrence decision as legal ammunition to challenge other deviant sexual-social behaviors such as same-sex marriage and polygamy. They were right. I wouldn’t be surprised if Barnard appeals to Goodrich v. Department of Public Health as well: the MA Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in MA. The reasoning employed in that case to legalize same-sex marriage is equally applicable to polygamy.

Second, the statement is rationally ridiculous. Barnard is arguing that the will of the majority, and the moral objections of fellow citizens should not be a factor when determining the legality of polygamy. Excuse me?! Since when does the will of the majority not count in a democracy? That may have been the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Lawrence, but that does not mean their reasoning was sound. In fact, their reasoning was quite asinine.

Since when are moral considerations irrelevant to law-making? Law is a moral enterprise on its face. Every law either promotes a good or prohibits an evil (bad). If morals cannot inform the law concerning marriage, then what does? If the majority of the citizenry cannot determine how they want to define marriage, then who should? I have to assume that the answer to these questions is the will of the immoral minority.

It’s not surprising when you dismiss democratic majority rule and morals legislations from the equation that there no longer remains a compelling justification for criminalizing polygamy. Why? Because they are the most compelling reasons! Dismissing them a priori only begs the question. I would like to know what compelling reasons there are to dismiss these compelling reasons as illegitimate to the question? I have no compelling reason to think the will of the majority and the moral position of the citizenry of this country should be excluded from the legal process. In fact, if we do so we destroy the democratic process.

 

October 4, 2006

You’re Only Valuable if you Live in CA

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics
Leave a Comment 

Can you imagine if I actually believed such a thing?! And yet that sort of logic is employed by abortion-choice advocates all the time.

I recently moved from Long Beach to San Jose. Would anyone think my change in physical location can deprive me of my value (or give me value if I had none before)? Of course not. So why, then, do abortion-choice advocates think the unborn’s location deprives him of value? Furthermore, why do many abortion-choice advocates think a fetus’ change in location from inside the womb to outside the womb gives him value? Why is a fetus in the womb a non-person deserving of no right to life, whereas that same fetus, once outside the womb, is now a person deserving of the right to life? This (excuse the crudeness) “magical-vagina” view of personhood—in which the birth canal confers personhood on a fetus like the king’s sword confers knighthood on a man—is rationally foolish. There is no ontological difference between the intrauterine fetus, and the extrauterine newborn. If there is no ontological difference, neither is there a moral difference.

 

October 4, 2006

The pope truly understands what’s at stake in the Darwinism vs. Theism war

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Naturalism
[4] Comments 

From the pope’s 9-12-06 homily address at Regensburg:

 

We believe in God. This is a fundamental decision on our part. But is such a thing still possible today? Is it reasonable? From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part, has applied itself to seeking an explanation of the world in which God would be unnecessary. And if this were so, he would also become unnecessary in our lives. But whenever the attempt seemed to be nearing success – inevitably it would become clear: something is missing from the equation! When God is subtracted, something doesn’t add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe. So we end up with two alternatives. What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. As Christians, we say: I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth – I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason. With this faith we have no reason to hide, no fear of ending up in a dead end. We rejoice that we can know God! And we try to let others see the reasonableness of our faith, as Saint Peter bids us do in his First Letter (cf. 3:15)!

Just one more nail in the coffin to the argument that Darwinism and theism are compatible. Agnostic/atheist scientists such as Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge claim the realm of science and the realm of religion are entirely separate. The twain shall never meet, and thus can never contradict one another. One can believe in Darwinism and embrace theism. Don’t believe such an absurdity! Darwinism is the creation story of materialistic philosophy: a way of accounting for existence without a supernatural creator. Even if God exists, they argue, He was not necessary to bring the universe into being, let alone into its present form. But if God is not necessary to explain our existence, then He is equally unnecessary in our lives as well. Although Darwinism does not necessarily exclude the possibility of God’s existence, it definitely excludes God’s involvement with the cosmos. And if God is not involved with the cosmos, then Christianity is false, and God is useless to us. We have no contact with him, and he has no contact with us. In fact, he doesn’t want to. This sort of deism is not reconcilable with the Christian conception of God.

 

October 4, 2006

Quotes of the Day

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Quote of the Day
Leave a Comment 

Barry A (from William Dembski’s blog) wrote:

 

Many people say Darwinism is a scientific theory, and as such does not speak to morality or ethics. Strictly speaking, this is true, but like ID, Darwinism also has profound implications for morality and ethics. It is not for nothing that Dawkins said Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. And as Nietzsche was honest enough to admit, an atheist is compelled to say that morality, ethics and justice are illusions. The only thing that exists is a brutal competition of wills. There is no right and wrong. There is only strong and weak. The 20th century was one long bloody lesson in the practical application of Nietzsche’s ideas.

We must always be very careful to distinguish between our science and our metaphysics. ID is science and Darwinism is science. Neither ID nor Darwinism addresses morality, ethics or justice, but both have implications for these matters. ID is consistent with my hope that a loving God exists Who has established a transcendent moral order. Darwinism is consistent with atheism, which in turn is inconsistent with the very idea of objective morality.

“Salvation obtains when accurate knowledge is combined with active trust.”—Greg Koukl, “Truth is Stranger Than it Used to Be”

 

October 3, 2006

Great Audio Lecture Site

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Odds & Ends
Leave a Comment 

The MacLaurin Institute has a page full of great audio lectures by the likes of such intellectual powerhouses as Michael Behe, Robert George, J. Budziszewski, Alvin Plantiga, and Dallas Willard. Check it out.

 

October 3, 2006

Amazing Video on the Cell

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Intelligent Design, Science
1 Comment 

Check out this amazing video showing the inner workings of the cell. Talk about making it come alive!

 

October 2, 2006

Don’t Call Me Brother…Brother

Posted by Jason Dulle under Odds & Ends, Theology
[2] Comments 

When I first got into church I enjoyed calling everyone “Brother X” and “Sister X.”  The use of such titles made everyone seem like a family.  Over the years, however, that enjoyment has waned for a couple of reasons.  Now I tend to drop the “brother” bit, and simply call people by their first name.

First, I came to realize that the title–meant to express something beautiful–was being used for ugly purposes. Some view the preface more as an honorary title indicative of personal respect than they do a familial and informal way of referring to one another.  There have been instances in which certain individuals (admittedly always men, always in positions of authority) have berated fellow-believers for not addressing them as “brother X.”  Although this is a minority attitude, the phenomenon did sour my perception of “brother.”

Secondly, the consistent use of the preface seems to keep relationships on too formal of a level.  People we are not particularly close to we call Brother X and Sister X; people we are close to we refer to by their first name.  Why?  Because the preface is too formal.  When the relationship deepens the preface tends to fall out of use naturally.

But doesn’t Scripture use such terminology?  Yes and no.  While the NT commonly uses familial language such as “brother” to refer to fellow-believers in the body of Christ in a generic sense, it only uses “brother” as a personal title for a specific individual on two occasions: Acts 9:17—Ananias called Paul “Brother Saul” (Acts 22:16 recounts same event); Acts 21:20—James called Paul “brother.” (There are 15 additional instances in which specific individuals are named, adding “our brother” or “a brother” (Rom 16:23; I Cor 1:1; 16:12; II Cor 1:1; 2:13; Eph 6:21; Phil 2:25; Col 1:1; 4:7, 9; I Thes 3:2; Phm 1; Heb 13:23; I Pet 5:12; II Pet 3:15; ); however, in every instance “brother” is used as a description, not as a title.)  Compare these two occurrences with the hundreds of others in which people were simply called by their first name.  Calling someone “Brother X” was the exception, not the norm. The opposite is true in most Pentecostal churches.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am not opposed to calling people “Brother X,” or referring to fellow-believers as brothers.  I thank God for the appellation!  How many times have we had the luxury of addressing those whose names we have forgotten with the generic, “Hi brother.  How are you?”  What I am opposed to is using the preface as an honorary title, over-using it, or being afraid to address someone without employing it.  There are times in which it is appropriate to call someone “Brother X,” or just plain “brother,” but let’s not forget that the name of our birth certificates does not begin with “brother” or “sister.

 

October 2, 2006

Who Cares that Embryonic Stem Cells Have the Potential to Morph into any Body Cell?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

Jean Peduzzi-Nelson, associate professor in the department of anatomy and cell biology at Detroit’s Wayne State University School of Medicine, wrote an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (posted online 9-02-06) about the current state of stem cell research. She explored the common arguments for the superiority of embryonic over adult stem cells, and found each lacking in practical or rational force.

 

Peduzzi-Nelson argues that adult stem cells are not only the only source of fruitful stem cell research at this point in time, but that the successes in adult stem cell research may obviate the practical need for embryonic stem cells. While the entire article is worth the read, one portion in particular is worth quoting here. Regarding the potential of embryonic stem cells to form into any one of the body’s 200+ cells Peduzzi-Nelson writes, “The ‘potential of embryonic stem cells to possibly form every cell type’ in the body is amazing but is of little clinical relevance. As long as a stem/progenitor cell is capable of forming the cell types needed for a particular injury or disease, the capability to form every cell type is a moot point.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–> In other words, so long as adult stem cells are able to form the cells we need to treat/cure disease, it is irrelevant how many other types of cells an embryonic stem cell might be able to create. What is needed are useful cells, not unuseful cells.

 

And by the way, the reason scientists say embryonic stem cells have the potential to morph into any of the body’s more than 200 cell types is because scientists have not been able to coax embryonic stem cells into doing so. While stem cells do so naturally in the normal development process, scientists have not yet discovered how to replicate the process in the lab.

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>

<!–[endif]–>

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>Jean Peduzzi-Nelson, “Adult cells are behind much of stem cell success so far”; available from http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=489953; Internet; accessed 25 September 2006.

 

September 28, 2006

Stone Markings: How Did They Know it Was Designed?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Archaeology, Intelligent Design
Leave a Comment 

Archaeologists recently discovered a stone with unknown markings in Mexico. While the meaning of the symbols is unknown, archaeologists did not hesitate to identify it as a written language—probably the oldest in the Americas. Stephen Houston of Brown University explained:

 

When I saw the block, as did the rest of us, we knew we were in the presence of something very special…. It had completely unknown signs, but they were arranged in these long sequences we felt just had to be a new form of writing…. It’s not just a set of symbols that might be placed together the way you might see on, let’s say, a medieval French or English painting. Rather, they are arranged in a sequence that is meant to reflect a language with grammatical elements and with a word order that makes sense.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>

Houston experienced what design theorists call a “design inference.” The specification and complexity of the markings made it clear that an intelligent agent, rather than chance processes, produced it. The fact that the identity of the designer is unknown (although it is believed to be from the Olmec civilization), and the design itself is currently unintelligible to us, does not mitigate our intuitive awareness that it was in fact designed. In the same way these archaeologists detected design on nature, we can detect design in nature: empirically. This is all the more so when you consider the multiplicity of the complexity and specification of the universe over these stone markings.

 

I previously mentioned that archaeologists believe the Olmec civilization is responsible for the stone markings. But how do the archaeologists know they were the creators of this stone writing? Did they see anyone from the Olmec civilization writing on this stone? No. Do they possess written records from a nearby tribe ascribing these sorts of markings to the Olmec civilization? No. Then why are they suggesting the Olmec civilization is responsible for creating the markings? I would imagine it’s because that was the only civilization of human beings living in that region at the time. But this presupposes that the markings were the product of intelligence, rather than chance natural processes. There is no evidence that this is true. No one has a date-stamped photograph of an Olmecian tribesman writing on the stone. The only basis for ascribing the stone markings to the Olmecs—or any other intelligent agent for that matter—is a design inference. The stone markings bear the marks of an intelligent designer, therefore—they reason—it must have been designed. And since the Olmecs were the only ones in that region at the time, they reason that they must be the designers. Again, design in the universe is just as easily inferred from what we know about the universe as it is inferred from what we know about this stone. Design is empirically detectable. Design inference is a scientific discipline.

 

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>

<!–[endif]–>

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>Christopher Joyce, “Earliest New World Writing Discovered”, NPR; available from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6077734; Internet; accessed 21 September 2006.

 

September 28, 2006

Peter Singer on Infanticide and Protecting Animals

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics
[2] Comments 

 

Princeton philosopher, Peter Singer, is best known for his support of infanticide and starting the animal liberation movement. On 9-11-06 Singer answered a host of questions on the Animal Liberation Front website, including questions about the forenamed topics. Two stand out in particular:

 

Question: Would you kill a disabled baby?

Answer: Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.

 

While I think Singer is morally sick, at least he is consistent in his views…unlike most abortion-choice advocates. He is absolutely right: birth is not a morally significant difference.

 

Question: Why should we assign rights to animals when we already recognise duties (of care, preservation of their species, etc) towards them? If animals have a right to life, for example, must we protect them against natural predators in the wild?

Answer: Unfortunately, we don’t come anywhere near fulfilling the duties we have to animals. If we did, we wouldn’t be bringing misery to the lives of millions of factory farmed animals, for no reason except that we prefer the taste of their flesh to other, cruelty-free and sustainable ways of feeding ourselves. As for protecting prey from predators, if we did that we would be upsetting the ecological system, and the prey would soon become too numerous and starve.

 

This one blows me away. While Singer claims we should not protect animals from other animals, we should protect animals from ourselves. This is contradictory given Singer’s view that we are just another animal in the forest. If we shouldn’t protect animals from other animals, then there is no need for us to protect them from other humans who want to eat them. Doing so “would be upsetting the ecological system.”

 

September 27, 2006

Science vs. Ideology?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Thinking
Leave a Comment 

The Guttmacher Institute is probably the most respected and accurate abortion-reporting agency in the U.S (they are decidedly abortion-choice in their ideology). I subscribe to their weekly e-blast to keep abreast on abortion statistics, as well as to see what kind of off-the-wall things these abortion-choicers will say next! In their August 24, 2006 email titled “Plan B Decision by FDA a Victory for Common Sense,” the GI praised the FDA’s decision to allow Plan B to be sold to adults without a prescription.

For those of you not familiar with Plan B, it is an “emergency contraceptive.” It is more commonly referred to as “the morning after pill.” If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex it will prevent conception. Many pro-lifers oppose the pill because it is believed to function as an abortifacient at the early embryonic stage as well (whether this is so will be the topic of a future post).

I was not surprised to find the GI praising the FDA’s decision. What caught my eye was a statement made by the president and CEO of the GI, Sharon Camp: “This is a historic event in the struggle for women’s reproductive health and rights, and a long-overdue victory for science over ideology.” Anyone who reads what abortion-choice advocates have to say quickly recognizes that they offer few arguments to substantiate their position. They defend it by throwing out nice-sounding slogans and catchy buzzwords that resonate with their audience. “Science over ideology” has become a favorite slogan among liberals who favor bioethical policies that allow for the destruction of prenatal human beings. Whenever someone raises a reasoned objection to their worldview, they respond that we are pushing our personal ideology at the expense of science.

A couple of things struck me about Ms. Camp’s use of this slogan, given the topic. First, she is constructing a straw-man. By pitting the pro-life view (“ideology”) against science, Ms. Camp intends to convey the notion that we are anti-science. That is simply not true, and she knows it. We are opposed to using science to kill innocent and vulnerable human beings. Our opposition is moral in nature. But it wouldn’t sound very good to put the debate in those terms: “This is…a long-overdue victory for science over morality.”

I was also struck by Ms. Camp’s reference to the pro-life position as “ideology.” I do not deny that the pro-life view is an ideology, but Ms. Camp’s use of this word is entirely rhetorical, and distorts the truth. First, she invests a negative connotation into an otherwise neutral word. Secondly, the fact of the matter is that her view on abortion is no less of an ideology than the pro-life view. They are competing and opposing ideologies. But these are the kind of word games abortion-choicers use to win the day. If you want to find substantive arguments, you’ll have to read pro-life authors!

 

September 27, 2006

Yet Another Pro-Cloning Cloning Ban Bill

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Cloning, Politics, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

 

 

Congressman Meisner from the state of Michigan introduced House Bill 4900 to amend sections of the public health code dealing with embryonic stem cell research (http://www.rtl.org/html/legislation/prolifeleg/pdf/EthicsTechnology/1998-SB864.pdf). It is being sold by Rep. Andy Meisner as a bill that will both permit embryonic stem cell research and prohibit human cloning. As with the Missouri and federal proposals, this bill legalizes human cloning while pretending to ban it.

 

It is similar to the other bills in that it:

 

  1. Avoids using the word “embryo” as much as possible (the MI law currently contains the word, but Meisner’s bill proposes to replace all but one occurrence with “fetus”)
  2. Prohibits human cloning by falsely defining human cloning as implanting a cloned embryo in a womb to gestate through birth.

 

Regarding the second, the bill boldly states, “A licensee or registrant shall not engage in or attempt to engage in human cloning.” Sounds good! I guess this means MI will not engage in research involving cloned embryos. But wait! That would be the proper conclusion if words meant something, but in the Meisner bill words don’t mean anything at all. Words mean whatever Meisner says they mean. He defines human cloning, not scientifically as the asexual creation of a human zygote through somatic cell nuclear transfer, but rather as “creating or attempting to create a human being by using the somatic cell nuclear transfer procedure for the purpose of, or to implant, the resulting product to initiate a pregnancy that could result in the birth of a human being.”

 

As with the other bills, Meisner’s bill claims to ban human cloning by redefining the term. Rather than defining “human cloning” in terms of the process involved, and the resultant product of that process, Meisner defines human cloning in terms of what a scientist purposes its creation for. If you use somatic cell nuclear transfer to create a human being for the purpose of implanting it in a womb and gestating it through birth, that is considered “human cloning” and is illegal. What about using somatic cell nuclear transfer to create a human being asexually for the purpose of destructive research? According to Meisner that is not cloning. Why? Is it a different process from the one he described? No. Was the product of that process different? No. So why is one considered human cloning and the other not? Because Meisner says so!

The fact of the matter is that what one purposes to do with the product of “somatic cell nuclear transfer” does not make it, or fail to make it a clone. A clone is a clone regardless of what we do with it. Intentions do not create reality. Reality is what it is apart from what we purpose. The fact of the matter is that the act of cloning is complete at somatic cell nuclear transfer. What one decides to do with the clone (gestate it through birth, kill it for research) subsequent to the act of cloning does not change the fact that the entity itself is a human clone. But that doesn’t matter to those like Meisner. It’s much more convenient to just define cloning in such a way that it has nothing to do with cloning, ban the pseudo-form of cloning, and then go on about your cloning business all the while affirming your opposition to cloning! Wouldn’t it be funny if someone stole Meisner’s car, get apprehended, and then tell Mr. Meisner that they did not “steal” his car because they did not intend to sell it. When Meisner protests they can explain to him that “theft is the taking of someone else’s property without their permission for the purpose of selling it.” Since they had no intentions of selling it, it is not stealing. I don’t think Meisner would be persuaded. Neither should we be persuaded by his disingenuous bill.

 

Since this bill is the amending of an existing law it is important to look at what Meisner wants to take out. The law currently reads: “A person shall not use a live human embryo or neonate for nontherapeutic research….” Meisner proposes to delete “human embryo” and insert “fetus” in its place. It’s obvious why he wants to swap “fetus” for “embryo.” It’s hard to justify killing embryos when the law says you can’t. By changing the language to “fetus,” experimenting on humans up to 8 weeks old becomes legally justifiable.

 

But what about the deletion of “human”? Why delete that word? Is a fetus not human? Yes it is. Is it scientifically inaccurate to call it human? No it’s not. Then why delete the word? It is being deleted for political purposes, not clarity or scientific accuracy.

 

Thankfully the Michigan congress is controlled by pro-life Republicans, so currently the bill is going nowhere. Let’s pray it stays that way.

 

September 26, 2006

Woman in Vegetative State Plays Tennis in Her Head…and Some People are Not Happy About It

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Euthanasia
Leave a Comment 

The British journal Nature reported on some startling new evidence that those in a vegetative state may have an active mental state. MRI scans of a 23 year-old woman in an unresponsive state for five months, revealed similar brain patterns to healthy counterparts when she asked to imagine particular things such as playing tennis. (There has been mounting scientific evidence that those in a coma are fully aware of themselves, but unable to respond. Their immaterial spirit remains active and healthy, but is unable to express itself physically due to its damaged body.)

 

One would think this news would be cause for excitement, and spur those who support killing people in vegetative states to rethink their position. One would think…! Never underestimate a genuine liberal. Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe was anything but excited about this find. Goodman sees this—not as a reason to forego killing unresponsive patients—but rather as further justification for doing so. She writes:

 

[W]e do not know whether the researchers who suggest that vegetative patients may be aware of themselves and their surroundings have given us a hopeful story line or a horror story.

As University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Art Caplan says, “It’s not necessarily good news that someone might have some form of consciousness but not be able to interact emotionally, socially or communicate in any way shape or form. To spend your life dimly aware but unable to let anyone know you are in there is more the subject of Stephen King or Edgar Allan Poe than some sort of medical hope.”

…

No MRI can say whether that “rich, inner life” is a tapestry of hope or a nightmare. Which cliché fits a locked-up awareness? “While there’s life there’s hope”? Or “a fate worse than death”? The researchers, in all their enthusiasm, cannot answer the fundamental question that was raised by the Schiavo case: Would you want to live like this? Nor can technology with all its power tell us what is right and wrong, humane and inhumane.

Nearly a year after her accident, the British patient had advanced into a state of minimal consciousness. She could follow a mirror with her eyes. But no machine can tell her family or doctors whether she wanted to live “like this.”

…

Woman in Vegetative State Plays Tennis in Her Head. But is it a game or a trap?

You have to understand the force of this argument. Traditionally people in favor of killing people in a persistent vegetative state argue that it is morally acceptable to do so because the person is no longer conscious. According to personhood theory, consciousness is the sine qua non for defining human value. But here we have someone arguing that they should be killed because they are conscious! This just shows how unprincipled some liberals can be. Euthanasia is an ideology that must be promoted above all, even if it necessitates a changing of one’s principles. Ultimately euthanasia is about man determining what is best for himself apart from all moral considerations, and at times, what is best for others. God help us!

 

September 26, 2006

Swiss euthanasia group wants to assist the depressed in suicide

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Euthanasia
Leave a Comment 

Euthanasia advocates seek to persuade the public toward their view by holding up the terminally ill and crying, “Have compassion.” What they don’t tell you is that their agenda involves much more than assisting the terminally ill in suicide. The terminally ill are just one step on a staircase that ultimately leads to death-on-demand.

 

One recent example of this can be seen in a Swiss euthanasia group, Dignitas. Dignitas has petitioned the Swiss court to be allowed to (legally) assist the depressed in suicide. The case will be heard October 27. (The Dutch already allow it)

 

The founder, Ludwig Minelli, said “We should see in principle suicide as a marvellous possibility given to human beings because they have a conscience… If you accept the idea of personal autonomy, you can’t make conditions that only terminally ill people should have this right. We should accept generally the right of a human being to say ‘Right, I would like to end my life’, without any pre-condition, as long as this person has capacity of discernment.”

 

He blamed “stupid ecclesiastical superstition” for the stigma attached to suicide. That’s the way to win friends and influence people!

 

September 25, 2006

In the Beginning Watches Came from Non-Watches

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Science
[3] Comments 

The notion that life came from non-life is one of the most absurd aspects of evolutionary biology, and yet it is believed without evidence by many seemingly intelligent people. To see the absurdity of such a notion check out this short video. It makes mockery of a naturalistic view of life’s origin by rewriting the Darwinian story a little. Check it out!

 

 

HT: William Dembski

 

September 25, 2006

ACT did not extract embryonic stem cells without harming the embryo

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Cloning, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

This is one month old news now, but I’m sure some of you heard about a new technique created by Advanced Cell Technology that allows researchers to extract a single cell from an embryo, and successfully grow a stem cell line without killing the embryo. The news story appeared on the front page of the nation’s most prestigious news papers. What didn’t appear on the front page, however, was the fact that hardly a lick of it was true. The vice-president of the company, and its chief ethicist lied on several occassions about what they did and did not do.

 

Check out two articles by Wesley J. Smith, lawyer and bioethicist, regarding this scam (here and here). It is really sad how corrupt and politicized science has become. They have a political agenda, and will stop at nothing–including outright deception–to accomplish it.

 

And for the fun of it, watch pro-life Catholic, Richard Doerflinger, confront ACT vice-president, Robert Lanza about his misrepresentations of his company’s research. He squirms, he evades, and tries to change the subject to put Doerflinger’s personal views about embryonic stem cell research in general on trial.

 

September 21, 2006

Intelligence comes from chance, not intelligence?: the absurdity of atheism

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Naturalism
[3] Comments 

Science fiction stories are filled with visions of artificial intelligence (A.I.). Recent movies depicting robots with human-levels of artificial intelligence include I-Robot and A.I. Is this pure science fiction, or is it a genuine possibility in not-so-distant future? Peter Kassan answered this question in an article written for Skeptic magazine.

 

Kassan argued persuasively that the quest for A.I. has been, and will continue to be a dead-end street. Scientists have been unable to duplicate the intelligence of even the simplest of creatures, yet alone human beings. For example, although scientists have studied and mapped the neural patterns of the simple C. elegans worm, no one has been able to duplicate its base level of intelligence. C. elegans possesses a mere 300 neurons, compared to the human brain which contains 100 billion (100,000,000,000). Our cerebral cortex alone contains 30 billion neurons, and 1000 trillion synapses (1,000,000,000,000,000). That is 100 million (100,000,000) times the number of neurons, and 100 trillion (100,000,000,000,000) times the number of synapses of C. elegans. In light of such figures it becomes painfully obvious why developing human A.I. is nowhere on the horizon.

 

Advocates of A.I. retort that the task of replicating human intelligence is only a problem of time. They observe that computers double in capacity and speed every 18 months. Based on this they argue that given enough time, computers will be large enough and fast enough to create A.I. comparable to the human brain. But as Kassan points out, computational speed of computer processors is not the problem! The problem is the software. A.I. would only be as good as the program being run by the computer. While computers double in performance and capacity every 18 months, computer programs don’t. They increase in complexity at a far slower rate. Furthermore, experience has shown that the larger software programs get, the slower they become. Additionally, the larger the program the more room for error. A software program simulating the human brain would contain 20 trillion errors at a minimum. Kassan describes this “programming problem” by way of analogy:

 

If each synapse were handled by the equivalent of only a single line of code, the program to simulate the cerebral cortex would be roughly 25 million times larger than what’s probably the largest software product ever written, Microsoft Windows, said to be about 40 million lines of code. As a software project grows in size, the probability of failure increases. The probability of successfully completing a project 25 million times more complex than Windows is effectively zero.

What I found so interesting about the article was not so much what it had to say (although it was very interesting), but who was saying it. While I do not know Kassan’s precise beliefs about God, the fact that he wrote an article for Skeptic magazine tells me he is probably an atheist and advocate of Darwinian evolution. As such he does not believe the universe is the result of a designing intelligence, but rather blind, unintelligent, random chance processes. As part of the universe, human intelligence must have been produced by the same chance processes. Herein lies the absurdity of Kassan’s worldview.

 

Kassan recognizes the near-inconceivable complexity of human intelligence, and argues persuasively that intelligent designers (humans) will never be able to re-create it artificially. While I agree with Kassan this invites a question: How can time + chance create what time + intelligence cannot? If time + intelligence cannot produce anything similar to the complexity of human intelligence, surely time + chance would fail as well. Kassan would have us believe time + chance is better equipped to create complex intelligence than time + intelligence; that blind, unintelligent, random chance processes are better designers of intelligence than the most intelligent beings on the planet. That is a rational absurdity! How is it possible for chance to be better equipped to create an extremely complicated machine than human beings? How do natural processes create something that is 25,000,000 times more complex than the most complex program created by intelligent beings?

 

When Kassan boots up Microsoft Windows on his personal computer, does he ever think for a second that this extremely complex program consisting of 40 million lines of coded information was produced by unintelligent, random chance processes? Of course not! It is far too complex for that. How, then, can he look at something 25,000,000 times more complex than Windows and say it was created by time + chance? The disconnect in Kassan’s worldview is so glaring that I cannot understand how he can miss it. While atheists pride themselves on being rational, believing time + chance can produce complex intelligence whereas time + intelligence cannot is anything but rational.

 

This is just one more example demonstrating that atheists’ problem with Christianity is not one of the intellect, but one of the will. Christianity is not only intellectually plausible, but explanatorily superior to atheism. It is rejected, however, because people do not want to bend the knee. They want to be their own lord. Rationality takes a back seat to their perverted will.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »