Correction Regarding the Isakson Stem Cell Bill

Last week I wrote in response to a Washington Times article about a bill (S. 30) sponsored by Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). According to the paper, the White House was in support of the bill which would allow federal funding for research on embryos deemed incapable of surviving in the womb.

A few minutes ago I received an email from Stand to Reason's Melinda Penner who, after reading my post, asked Scott Klusendorf for his take on the proposed legislation. Scott forwarded the following comments from National Right to Life:

[On April 11, the Senate will also vote on a second bill, S. 30, sponsored by Senators Norm Coleman (R-Mn.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), that would encourage federal funding for research into new ways to obtain different kinds of stem cells suitable for research, without harming human embryos. The Coleman-Isakson bill is titled the “Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act,” or “HOPE Act.” NRLC has no objection to S. 30.]

The Family Research Council offers further clarification:

Misleading reports claim that S. 30 would fund research on human embryos if they are "nonviable." In fact, S. 30 would fund all stem cell research, including both adult stem cells and stem cells that are "embryonic-like" so long as they are not derived from embryos that are harmed, placed at risk, or destroyed. The bill allows the funding of research on stem cells taken from naturally dead embryos--but not if their death was hastened in any way. We are neutral on S. 30 because, while it holds the ethical line, we want to be sure its safeguards are observed in practice.

I'm relieved to learn that the Times report was in error. I regret circulating misinformation and am grateful to Melinda and Scott for their help in clarifying the issue. Melinda has encouraged Scott to offer further analysis and explanation of the bill at Life Training Institute's blog so keep an eye out.

Wanted: Moral Clarity at the White House

The Washington Times reports that yesterday the White House expressed support for a bill that would allow federal funding of embryonic stem cell research using embryos deemed incapable of surviving in the womb and/or that have died during fertility treatments. The article applauds the bill, authored by Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, as one that "skirts moral concerns over using embryonic stem cells while ensuring federal funding for the breakthrough science."

A White House spokesman is quoted as saying that the Bush administration is "very supportive" of the legislation and that "By intensifying support for non-destructive alternatives, we can advance medical research in valuable ways while respecting ethical boundaries. But it's mistaken and/or misleading to describe the proposed legislation as a solution to the ethical problem of embryonic stem cell research. Experimentation on already dead embryos poses no problem. However, harvesting stem cells from living embryos is destructive in that it terminates the embryo's life. That the embryos are going to die anyway because they can't survive in the womb is ethically irrelevant. A consistently pro-life stance acknowledges the intrinsic value of every human life and rejects pleas to take innocent life on the grounds that death is inevitable and countless other lives could benefit.

There appears to be a puzzling inconsistency in the administration's thinking. As the article points out, President Bush last year vetoed a bill providing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research because "he said taxpayers should not support research on embryos at fertility clinics, even if the embryos would otherwise be destroyed. Now he says that federal funding for destructive embryonic stem cell research is acceptable because the embryos to be used would otherwise be destroyed, only this time in the womb.

The Isakson bill is a compromise - a moral one.


Technorati Tags: embryonic stem cell research, stem cell research, stem cells, pro-life

Marginalized Voices in the Stem Cell Debate

Watch the mainstream media and you'll get the impression that disabled Americans are united in their support of embryonic stem cell research. James Kelly, who suffered a spinal cord injury in 1997, explains why he believes President Bush's veto of H.R. 810 is a cause for hope. (HT: bioethics.com)

Joni Eareckson Tada, a disability rights activist who has been a quadriplegic since suffering a spinal cord injury nearly 40 years ago, also supports the decision. This from LifeNews.com:

"People like me -- who are medically fragile -- are left vulnerable and exposed in a society that views human life as a commodity which can be experimented upon or exploited," she explained.

Tada said the disability community has another vested interest in the Presidential veto. Despite lack of reporting by the media, people with disabilities can be encouraged by recent and dramatic advancements in adult stem cell research, she said.

Adult cells may be more elastic than scientists previously thought and are offering short-cuts to treatment which embryonic cells cannot match. Over 70 medical conditions are either being treated using adult stem cell therapies or are presently in clinical trials. “I am grateful for the principled stand our President has taken, first and foremost because of the sanctity of human life, but also because restrictions on use of taxpayer dollars may well encourage funding in the overlooked and less commercially viable field of adult stem cell therapy," Tada explained.

Aborting Reason to Justify Killing

An excerpt from a NY Times editorial supporting the expansion of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research (my comments in italics):

"Therapeutic cloning involves the creation of embryos genetically matched to patients with specific diseases so that scientists can extract their stem cells and then study how the diseases develop and how best to treat them. The microscopic entities used in these studies may be called embryos but they have none of the attributes of humanity and, sitting outside the womb, no chance of developing into babies. "

None of the attributes of humanity? These embryos exhibit all the attributes of humanity at the embryonic stage of human development. By the Times' own admission, the embryos in question are clones, genetically matched to human patients. So how can they turn around and say that they have none of the attributes of humanity? To assert both that the embryos are human clones and that they are void of any of the attributes of humanity is to assert a contradiction.

What the editors really mean is that human embryos don't look like more mature humans. But this is no justification for killing them.

The Dispositional Decision

That's the term coined to refer to the decision in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients must make about what to do with their excess frozen embryos. A fascinating article in Mother Jones called Souls on Ice describes how the glut of cryogenically preserved in fertility clinics is forcing families and researchers to seriously reconsider their beliefs about when life begins, choice, and reproductive freedom.


The article highlights a study of 58 couples who gave birth to children conceived as a result of IVF and also had frozen embryos in storage (the average couple had seven embryos in storage with the average embryo having been in storage for four years). Dr. Robert Nachtigall, a reproductive endocrinologist at the University of California-SanFrancisco, led the study and "found that even in one of the bluest regions of the country, which is to say, among people living in and around San Francisco, few were able to veiw a three-day-old laboratory embryo with anything like detachment." Here are some other interesting quotes:

“I was like, ‘I created these things, I feel a sense of responsibility for them,’” is how one ivf patient put it. Describing herself as staunchly pro-choice, this patient found that she could not rest until she located a person—actually, two people—willing to bring her excess embryos to term. The presence of embryos for whom (for which?) they feel a certain undefined moral responsibility presents tens of thousands of Americans with a dilemma for which nothing—nothing—has prepared them.

Strikingly, Nachtigall found that even in one of the bluest regions of the country, which is to say, among people living in and around San Francisco, few were able to view a three-day-old laboratory embryo with anything like detachment. “Parents variously conceptualized frozen embryos as biological tissue, living entities, ‘virtual’ children having interests that must be considered and protected, siblings of their living children, genetic or psychological ‘insurance policies,’ and symbolic reminders of their past infertility,” his report noted. Many seemed afflicted by a kind of Chinatown syndrome, thinking of them simultaneously as: Children! Tissue! Children! Tissue!

For virtually all patients, [Nachtigall] found, the disposition decision was torturous, the end result unpredictable. “Nothing feels right,” he reported patients telling him. “They literally don’t know what the right, the good, the moral thing is.” In the fluid process of making a decision—any decision—some try to talk themselves into a clinical detachment. “Little lives, that’s how I thought about them,” said one woman. “But you have to switch gears and think, ‘They’re not lives, they’re cells. They’re science.’ That’s kind of what I had to switch to.”

“You weigh what’s best,” Nachtigall quoted one parent as saying, but what’s best is not, often, clear. This parent continued: “Are they people? Aren’t they people? In part of my mind, they’re potential people, but the point is, it seems odd to me to keep them frozen forever. It seems like not facing the issue.” A patient who had decided to donate embryos for research said, “We’ve agreed that it’s the right thing for us to do, but the final step is to get the forms notarized, and we haven’t done it. I will honestly say that it will be a day of mourning.”

The article notes that the overage of embryos has reached such proportions that companies now exist for the sole purpose of managing embryo inventory. Reading what Russell Bierbaum, the founder of one of these companies, had to say, illustrates why the church cannot afford to be ignorant of the bioethical issues involved in this and other reproductive technologies:

In a few instances, he says, he will take over abandoned embryos and attempt to track patients down. It is therefore people like ReproTech staff members—rather than, say, ministers or psychologists—who often are the ones discussing, with patients, fundamental questions touching on birth and death and life and reproduction, all the essential questions of humanity. “We end up being the counselors without the credentials,” acknowledges Bierbaum, “just answering the questions, being available.”

With the Senate debating whether to loosen restrictions on the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research this week, this is especially timely reading. The folks at Stones Cry Out have put together a helpful list of their stem cell posts from the last year worth checking out too.

Are Pro-Lifers Consistent?

I disagree with his conclusions concerning the moral status of embryos but Slate founding editor Michael Kinsley is right to point out that a consistent pro-life position would object as much to the destructive practices of fertility clinics as to embryonic stem cell research.

As Kinsley notes, the process of in vitro fertilization (IVF) frequently involves the production of more embryos than will be implanted with the excess being either discarded or indefinitely frozen. Kinsley's assessment of this practice is inescapable:

In short, if embryos are human beings with full human rights, fertility clinics are death camps —with a side order of cold-blooded eugenics. No one who truly believes in the humanity of embryos could possibly think otherwise.

I've often wondered about this inconsistency. Those who are most vocal about the evil of abortion are often less so when it comes to embryonic stem cell research and, as Kinsley notes, relatively silent when it comes to the destructive methods used by most fertility clinics. Perhaps because reproductive technology such as IVF is considered "pro-family," we're not as critical of its practices as we should be, turning a blind eye to its many casualties. But this is to adopt an "ends justifies the means" mentality antithetical to pro-life logic. Might Kinsley be right when he states that the majority of opponents to embryonic stem cell research have never thought about this inconsistency or have thought about it and don't care?

To his credit, Mr. Kinsley, who describes himself as a strong believer in abortion rights, identifies the flaw in the reasoning most often presented to justify the destruction of huma embryos for the purpose of medical research:

Proponents of stem-cell research like to emphasize that it doesn't cost the life of a single embryo. The embryos killed to extract their stem cells were doomed already. But this argument gives too much ground, and it misses the point. If embryos are human beings, it's not OK to kill them for their stem cells just because you were going to kill them, or knowingly let them die, anyway.

But then he says that a more devastating point is that if embryos are human beings, more of them are killed in fertility clinics than in stem cell research and no one objects very loudly. However, this is simply to point out an inconsistent application of the pro-life position, not to offer a sound argument in support of medical research that destroys human lives in the process.

Since we're on the subject of logical consistency, it should be noted that Mr. Kinsley commits a fallacy (or two) of his own. He claims that the fact that embryos are regularly created and destroyed in the course of nature makes it difficult for him to "make the necessary leap of faith to believe that an embryo and, say, Nelson Mandela, are equal in the eyes of God." This seems to be an implicit form of the naturalistic fallacy; reasoning from the way things are to the way things should be (or, as it is sometimes stated, arguing from the is to the ought). Since spontaneous abortions occur regularly, then it must be permissible for us to kill unborn children as well. But the consistent application of this way of thinking would also justify infanticide and other forms of murder since death at all stages of life is a natural phenomenon. Furthermore, I don't understand why Kinsley thinks that those who die earlier than others are somehow less valuable than those who survive them. Where's the logic in that?

Related:
Russell Moore - Nelson Mandela and the Frozen Embryo
JivinJ - Honesty-What Michael Kinsley is missing in the stem cell debate
Al Mohler - Has Kinsley Found Our Weak Spot? On the Logic of the Embryo

Non-scientific Motivations: James Sherely on Harvard's Stem Cell Plan

A few weeks ago I pointed to a Boston Globe editorial by M.I.T. biological engineer and Harvard graduate James Sherley in which he criticized Harvard's plan to attempt human embryo cloning for stem cell research on scientific and ethical grounds. In a recent interview with MercatorNet (HT: Mere Comments), he gives more reasons for his opposition and asks the most critical question. Some excerpts:

MercatorNet: As a world-renowned university, Harvard prides itself on the calibre of its cutting-edge academics, not only in science, but also ethics, theology and politics. But has the desire to maintain Harvard's reputation affected its ethical judgement?

Sherley: The public should demand to hear this question addressed by Harvard professors of ethics, politics, history of science, and economics and also by Harvard professors who have a dissenting view. They may be silent, muted, or unreported on the issue. The public needs to know which is the case. Surely, this revered faculty of original and independent thinkers, who recently cast out their President for his regressive prejudicial ideas, is not monolithic in its view on the moral status of human embryos and their treatment by Harvard scientists.

MercatorNet: You seem pretty convinced that human embryos are human beings. Can you explain briefly why?

Sherley: My answer is, "What else could they be -- aliens?" Scientists who want to conduct experiments with human embryos are quick to say what human embryos are not. I challenge them to tell the public what human embryos are. There is only one answer to this question, "living human beings."

MercatorNet: But why can't you convince your colleagues at Harvard and MIT of your point of view? What's the stumbling block?

Sherley: When scientists arrange their own press conferences to announce promises for the future that involve significant self-gain, let the public beware. The stumbling block is non-scientific motivations.

I encourage you to read the whole thing. And if you'd like to read my reaction to Harvard's stem cell initiative, I blogged about it here.

A Horrifying Vision

James Kelly, biotech writer for The Seoul Times, explains what changed his mind about backing embryonic stem cell research:

In 2002 I changed my stem cells course because of a horrifying vision – the image of millions of desperate and trusting humans holding plates of hope to an empty sky.

The actions of scientists have confirmed my course. While telling the American people that they only want "to keep all research options open," science and industry convinced the people of California to commit three billion dollars to ES cell research and human cloning – ten times the annual NIH budget for adult stem cell research. They're pursuing an additional billion dollars in public funds in both New York and Illinois, and another $750,000,000 from Wisconsin.  Under the guise of "keeping all options open," colossal resources are being siphoned away from practical and foreseeable causes for medical hope.

Kelly, who has testified before Congress and debated the late Christopher Reeve, has been paralyzed since 1997 and is Director of the Cures 1st Foundation in the US. His article reveals numerous ways that the public is purposefully misinformed and misled by backers of embryonic stem cell research. Here's an example:

One Washington-based science reporter, an avowed atheist, often writes that embryonic stem (ES) cells "can become every cell in the body." But he fails to mention that nine months of fetal development in the fetus are needed to do this. Nor does he report that ES cells matured in vitro (in a petri dish) tend to be genetically unstable and often function abnormally. Yet issues such as these determine whether publicly funded science leads to medical treatments in a foreseeable future, in a decade or two, or never.

Kelly has come to the conclusion that embryonic stem cells are of little practical worth for therapeutic purposes and gives ample support for his position. His thoughtful article should lead us to question who is really being anti-scientific and dispassionate. (HT: stem-cell-therapy.blogspot.com)

Veritas? Harvard's Stem Cell Initiative

Last night I read a press release announcing Harvard University's launch of a privately funded program that will create cloned embryos for the purpose of embryonic stem cell research. I wondered how the institution would handle the ethical controversy surrounding the procedure so I read this article in the Harvard Gazette. Doing so left me thinking how ironic it is that the school's seal bears the Latin word for "truth."

Consider the following quote from Lawrence Summers, Harvard's president:

While we understand and respect the sincerely held beliefs of those who oppose this research, we are equally sincere in our belief that the life-and-death medical needs of countless suffering children and adults justifies moving forward with this research.

Notice, Summers didn't identify the beliefs he claims to understand and respect. Nor did he attempt to offer any reasons why those beliefs are false. He, like many other backers of embryonic stem cell research simply evaded the issue of greatest importance - the moral status of the human embryo.

What's more troubling, however, is that a leader of a renowned intellectual center would suggest that the sincerity with which one holds a belief is sufficient warrant for holding it. Instead of offering a rational justification for Harvard's actions, Summers essentially says, "We're as convinced that we are right as our opponents are that we're wrong." So much for debate and moral discourse. What kind of example is Summers giving Harvard's young scholars when he engages in this kind of rhetoric?

Douglas Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute didn't fare any better in his attempt to address the ethical issue:

But Melton responds that "all human cells, even individual sperm and eggs, are 'living.' The relevant question is 'when does personhood begin?' That's a valid theological or philosophical question, but from the scientific perspective, this work holds enormous potential to save lives, cure diseases, and improve the health of millions of people. The reality of the suffering of those individuals far outweighs the potential of blastocysts that would never be implanted and allowed to come to term even if we did not do this research," he said.

Melton tries to blunt the force of the fact that harvesting an embryo's stem cells inevitably results in its death by likening it to any other somatic cell. But this is misleading. Yes, it's true that human cells are alive but the crucial difference between an embryo and a sperm or egg cell is that the embryo is a complete human being - not simply a part. In order to escape this, Melton evokes the artificial distinction between a human being and a person, saying that this is the relevant question. The inescapable conclusion of reasoning like Melton's is that human life has no inherent value. It is whatever qualities he thinks a human being must possess in order to qualify as a person that are actually valuable. And, of course, this has troubling consequences for more members of our species than just the preborn.

If you pay careful attention to Melton's comments, you'll also note the frequently observed attempt to trump philosophy and theology with science. Sure, philosophy and theology may ask some valid questions but they don't deal with reality like science does. Melton contrasts the philosophical/theological issue of when personhood begins with the scientific fact (?) that embryonic stem cell research holds great potential for finding cures for millions. Improving the lives of this number outweighs the cost of destroying nascent individuals. But note that this is not a scientific but an ethical (and thus, philosophical) assertion.

I'm thinking Harvard needs a new seal...again.

A Clone by Any Other Name

Someone in our congregation emailed me requesting information about the ethical issues related to stem cell research. One of his coworkers has been absent from work due to cardiac complications and his fellow employees are trying to raise money for him to undergo treatment that involves stem cells of some sort. To his credit, the gentleman in our church wanted clarification before he made a contribution. This request serves as a vivid reminder of why it's important for Christians to be aware of the ethical issues that accompany advances in medical technology. The following is an edited excerpt from my reply:

Before I made a financial contribution toward stem cell therapy, I'd want to know what kind of stem cell treatment is involved.

There are two methods for acquiring these cells which have the unique ability to transform into various kinds of tissue. The ethically controversial method involves harvesting the desired cells from human embryos produced by cloning or provided by fertility clinics (embryos created for the purpose of reproduction but no longer wanted by their parents).

What's referred to as therapeutic cloning requires taking a female egg, removing its nucleus, and replacing it with the genetic material of the person to be treated. By means of electrochemical stimulation, this cell begins the process of cellular division and is essentially an embryonic clone of the donor. Given the proper environment it would progress through the stages of maturation as would any other embryo.

Advocates of this method refer to it as therapeutic cloning because it involves the cloning of an individual in order to potentially cure him or her of a disease. Proponents contend that while it would be unethical to allow this embryo to come to full term (reproductive cloning), it's morally acceptable to destroy it in its earliest stages in order to benefit others suffering from various diseases. However, this is merely to justify taking some human lives in order to improve others.

In contrast to embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells are produced in various parts of our bodies and can be obtained without taking human life. I would have no problem supporting therapy involving these.

For more information about stem cell research, I encourage you to read an article offered by the Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity called "Stem Cell Research and 'Therapeutic' Cloning: A Christian Analysis." It's written in a Q & A format and isn't very long. It will not only help you to make an informed decision about your participation in this situation but will also serve to equip you to confidently engage your coworkers on this important topic.

In an op-ed piece in yesterday's New York Times, Michael Gazzaniga, the director of Dartmouth's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, castigates President Bush for requesting that Congress "pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms." Gazzaniga takes issue with the President's referring to both therapeutic (or what he calls "biomedical") and reproductive cloning as egregious abuses. While he presumably thinks that such a description is fitting for the former kind of cloning, he finds it completely inappropriate for the latter. President Bush's characterization "makes it sound as if the medical community is out there cloning people, which is simply not true." Oh?

You'll have to read Gazzaniga's article for yourself but I find it quite confusing and contradictory. On one hand he denies that scientists are cloning people while acknowledging that both the products of reproductive and biomedical cloning are.....clones! For crying out loud, the article's title is "All Clones Are Not the Same!" If, as Gazzaniga claims, medical researchers are not cloning people, one wonders what exactly is being cloned? He writes that "the phrase 'in all its forms' is code, a way of conflating very different things: reproductive cloning and biomedical cloning." But in actuality, what makes reproductive and biomedical cloning differ is not the product or process but the intent of those doing the cloning. Concerning the oxymoron of so-called therapeutic cloning, Amy Coxon notes:

...there is absolutely no difference in the scientific techniques used to accomplish - or the embryonic human beings produced - via therapeutic cloning or the cloning of a human being for other purposes. The idea that an "organism" created by cloning is a "new type of biological entity never before seen in nature" is an attempt by scientists to hide the truth of this new technology behind scientific jargon. Instead of calling this cloned organism an embryo, which is precisely what it is, scientists have labeled it an "activated egg." This is again manipulation of terminology with the hope of deceiving the public. In fact, the term "therapeutic cloning" itself is used to deceive the general public into believing that human cloning is acceptable and beneficial in certain medical circumstances. With the media's and the scientific community's frequent misuse of scientific terminology, it is crucial that we as Christians correctly discern the meanings behind this terminology. If we do not take steps to understand the science, we cannot defend our position in an educated manner and therefore will have no public voice on these issues.

Gazzaniga says that in 2002, he and the other members of the President's Council on Bioethics "voted unanimously to ban reproductive cloning--the kind of cloning that seeks to replicate a human being." He goes on to say that this kind of cloning has not been attempted and is not in the works. But this is misleading. In an attempt to derive embryonic stem cells compatible with a diseased person's system, a procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer is performed. This involves replacing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg with a somatic cell from the patient. Cellular division is then stimulated so that eventually stem cells can be harvested from the embryonic clone which is destroyed in the process. Regardless of the absence of intent to allow the clone to mature into subsequent stages, the fact remains that it is a human clone.

If there is anything with which I agree with Dr. Gazzaniga about it's that at the heart of the moral debate surrounding biomedical cloning is a clash of ideas about what it means to be human. According to Gazzaniga, President Bush's concept of what constitutes humanness is "nonsensical" and "a form of the 'DNA is destiny' story." To the contrary, he asserts, "...all modern research reveals that DNA must undergo thousands if not millions of interactions at both the molecular and experiential level to grow and develop a brain and become a person. It is the journey that makes a human, not the car."

When they're not accusing opponents of embryonic stem cell research of being dispassionate, they're accusing us of being unscientific. However, if you pay close attention to what Dr. Gazzaniga is saying, you'll see that his case does not rest on scientific conclusions but on a functionalist view of humanness or personhood. The distinction that Gazzaniga would like to make is a philosophical not a scientific one. The claim that only those members of the human species that have a brain functioning at a certain level count as human beings or persons is not one that can be verified or falsified by means of empirical inquiry. Furthermore, Gazzaniga's analogy between the earliest stage of human development and a vehicle is faulty. Regardless of how long a drive I take, it will never be true that I was a car. However, it is true that I was once an embryo.

Concluding his essay, Gazzaniga writes:

In his State of the Union speech, President Bush went on to observe that "human life is a gift from our creator-and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale." Putting aside the belief in a "creator," the vast majority of the world's population takes a similar stance on valuing human life. What is at issue, rather, is how we are to define "human life." Look around you. Look at your loved ones. Do you see a hunk of cells or do you see something else?

Most humans practice a kind of dualism, seeing a distinction between mind and body. We all automatically confer a higher order to a developed biological entity like a human brain. We do not see cells, simple or complex-we see people, human life. That thing in a petri dish is something else. It doesn't yet have the memories and loves and hopes that accumulate over the years. Until this is understood by our politicians, the gallant efforts of so many biomedical scientists, as good as they are, will remain only stopgap measures.

The tiny cloned embryo in the petri dish may be void of memories, loves, and hopes. But then again, so are newborns. What conclusions would Dr. Gazzaniga have us draw from that?

Frist's Folly: How Does He Do It?

This morning in a reply to a friend who expressed her appreciation for the title of last Friday's post about Senator Bill Frist, I mentioned that I still can't get over how contorted his reasoning is. I also commented that I don't know how the man can sleep with all that cognitive dissonance ricocheting around. 

Christianity Today's Stan Guthrie shares his own wonderment at the senator's "marvelous burst of logical and moral incoherence." Commenting on the Mr. Frist's affirmation that he is pro-life and that the human embryo "deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect," Guthrie asks, "In other words, treating human embryos with 'the utmost dignity and respect' includes killing them for research—as long as that killing is done 'within ethical bounds.' That's pro-life?"

Guthrie concludes his appropriately titled article, "Frist's Folly", with this important reminder:

Finally, Frist's flip-flop reminds Christians that we cannot rely on any political party—even one officially "pro-life"—to always make moral (or even logical) decisions. While we may make temporary alliances with this politician or that, ultimately we do not belong to any party. We belong to Jesus Christ.

Bill Frist Supports the Destruction of Human Life AND Logic

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's decision to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research is all over today's news. Frist professes to be pro-life and says that it's a "fact of science" that an embryo is "nascent human life." From the other side of his mouth, however, he says, "I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported."

Mr. Frist insists that the bill provides an ethical framework because federal monies would only be used to fund research on embryos that would otherwise be discarded. It seems to me that if the senator were consistent with his stated belief that conception marks the beginning of a distinct human life, he'd be opposed to all forms of embryonic destruction. It shouldn't matter whether they're thrown out like yesterday's trash or experimented on for the noble cause of seeking cures for terrible diseases. In either case, a defenseless human life is being terminated unnecessarily.

Mr. Frist would have us believe that it's ethical to kill an innocent person who was going to be killed anyway as long as it's for the greater good. I'm sure he wouldn't want to state it that plainly but when you excise the euphemistic rhetoric that's what you're left with.

Illinois Governor Orders Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich pulled a fast one this week reminiscent of Mayor Richard Daley's decision to bulldoze Meigs Field under the cover of darkness. The governor's decision is more grave, however, as it will result in the taking of human lives and that at the expense of taxpayers opposed to having their money used to fund such actions.

On Tuesday, Gov. Blagojevich issued an executive order earmarking 10 million dollars of the state's 55 million dollar budget for stem cell research, including that which requires the destruction of human embryos. The Chicago Tribune (free registration required) reports that Blagojevich asserted that his was the "morally right" decision and quotes the Democratic governor as saying that he is prepared for any backlash he receives as a result of it: "So whatever criticism and remarks that come my way--and I suspect there will be a firestorm of criticism because I'm using executive power--I enthusiastically embrace it. I feel very good about this decision." Frankly, I don't care how the governor feels about his decision. I'm interested in hearing his reasons for believing, as he surely must, that embryonic human life is not deserving of protection.

The Trib article describes the governor's underhanded methodology:

The governor's order follows the defeat of several stem-cell research measures in the spring session of the legislature. The most ambitious plan, pushed by state Comptroller Dan Hynes, proposed increasing taxes on cosmetic surgery to raise $100 million for research.

Although Blagojevich opposed Hynes' proposed tax increase, he supported allocating more money for stem-cell research, and the two hatched the plan to plug the $10 million into the $55 million budget that took effect July 1.
The money was added as a single line item to the budget of the Illinois Department of Public Health and was listed as being "for scientific research," without mentioning stem cells.

In a response to the governor's order, Peter LaBarbera, Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute writes, "The governor has done an end-run around the legislative process to fund research that advances a utilitarian agenda in which the end justifies the means."

Sarah Flashing (yes, the Intellectuelle ), Director of Public Relations for the Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity, issued the following press release today:

The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity (CBHD) strongly denounces Gov. Blagojevich's executive order to fund embryonic stem cell research through the creation of the Illinois Regenerative Institute for Stem Cell Research with 10 million Illinois taxpayer dollars.

"Though it's commendable to want to help those who are suffering debilitating diseases and injuries, it is unconscionable to do so at the expense of other human lives," said Dr. John Kilner, president of CBHD. "This is an imposition of morally problematic research on the citizens of Illinois. The people have already spoken through the democratic process- legislation to promote this research failed in the General Assembly. Stem cell research can be pursued ethically by focusing research on adult stem cells, including cord blood cells."

Dr. C. Ben Mitchell, Senior Fellow at CBHD said, "The governor's action is not only morally reprehensible, but should be a signal to every Illinois voter. If he will not protect the most vulnerable among us, he cannot be trusted to protect the rest of us."

Gov. Blagojevich's executive order comes on the eve of CBHD's 12th Annual Bioethics Conference, Genetics and Reproductive Ethics, to be held July 14- 16, 2005 on the campus of Trinity International University in Deerfield, IL. A media reception will be held on Thursday, July 14th, from 5 to 6 p.m. Details can be obtained by calling 847.317.4097. Speakers for the Bioethics Conference include Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics and Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. Other speakers such as Princeton University's Robert George will explain why the embryos destroyed in embryonic stem cell research should be recognized and treated as the human beings they are. Other conference topics will include reproductive and genetic technologies, cloning, and embryo adoption.

Since Governor Blagojevich is prepared for criticism, I hope Illinois readers won't disappoint him. You can contact his office via the web or by calling (217) 782-0244 or (312) 814-2121.

Stem Cell Debate Myths

In today's Chicago Tribune, editorial board member Steve Chapman identifies misinformation widely disseminated by proponents of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). We're probably all familiar with the argument that rather than discarding 400,000 frozen, "surplus" embryos in fertilization clinics we should use them for potentially life-saving research. Chapman notes, however:

The truth is that most of them are anything but "surplus." According to a 2003 survey by researchers at the RAND Corp., a California think tank, 88 percent of them are being stored for their original function: to make babies for their parents. (See How Many Frozen Human Embryos are Available for Research.)
Just 2.2 percent of the embryos have been designated for disposal and less than 3 percent for research. The latter group amounts to about 11,000 embryos.

Chapman points out that given this significantly smaller number, embryo adoption is not as far-fetched an idea as ESCR advocates would have us believe.
The RAND study concluded that the 11,000 embryos would yield no more than 275 stem cell lines, far less than the "hundreds of thousands" of lines (derived from millions of embryos) that may be required according to a Scientific American article. I fear Chapman is right about the reason ESCR advocates pushed for the federal bill recently passed by the House. I also agree with his concluding note of caution:

....they want Americans to get used to the idea of destroying human embryos in research. Then it will be a small step to get the public to accept what they really want--creating human life in order to destroy it.
Maybe most Americans will support creating vast farms of tiny embryos that will be culled like cattle for their stem cells. But if that's where this train is going, we ought to know it before we get on board.

Correction: Some Religious Beliefs Are Permissible in the Stem Cell Debate

World Magazine has a story about the haste on the part of U.S. lawmakers to pass legislation allowing for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research after South Korea's Hwang Woo-Suk successfully engineered embryonic clones from which to extract stem cells. I find the following ironic given all the clamor about the impropriety of allowing religious beliefs to impede research:

The Korea Times described Mr. Hwang as a devout Buddhist whose beliefs helped him sort out the ethical questions of stem-cell research. The newspaper quoted one of Mr. Hwang's partners, Moon Shin-yong, as saying cloning represented a "different way of thinking about the cycle of life and rebirth."

For more about Dr. Hwang's ethical justification (and why he made sure someone talked to the embryos) read Steve Wagner's post at STR's blog.

Thank You, New York Times!

I'd like to thank the New York Times for providing an excellent illustration of the faulty thinking I referred to yesterday in today's editorial. The article faults President Bush for imposing (there's that word again! It appears three times in the brief piece) his theological beliefs concerning the humanity of embryos on our pluralistic nation.

Concerning President Bush's statement that federal funding of embryonic stem cell research would "take us across a critical ethical line," the Times says:

Never mind that this particular ethical line looms large only for a narrow segment of the population. It is not deemed all that critical by most Americans or by most religious perspectives. Rather, the president's intransigence provided powerful proof of the dangers of letting one group's religious views
dictate national policy.

Apparently, the Times would have us play ethics by the numbers. Right and wrong are determined by straw poll. We don't have to turn far back in our history books to find proof of where that kind of thinking leads, do we? Beyond that, the Times is being disingenuous in suggesting that the only reason for concluding that human embryos are individual human beings is religious. Prior to the politicization of the issue with Roe v. Wade in 1973, numerous textbooks on embryology and reproduction pointed to conception as the beginning of an individual's life as evidenced by the following quotes appearing in Frank Beckwith's Politically Correct Death:

[A]ll organisms, however large and complex they may be when fullgrown, begin life as but a single cell. This is true of the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum. (Dr. M. Krieger, The Human Reproductive System, 88 [1969])
The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual (Dr. B. Patten, Human Embryology 43 [3d ed., 1968])

The Times editorial goes on to say:

The president's policy is based on the belief that all embryos, even the days-old, microscopic form used to derive stem cells in a laboratory dish, should be treated as emerging human life and protected from harm. This seems an extreme way to view tiny laboratory entities that are no larger than the period
at the end of this sentence and are routinely flushed from the body by Mother Nature when created naturally.

The conviction that embryonic life should be protected is only "extreme" if one begins with the premise that the value of any particular human life is proportionate to its size. But that's sheer nonsense. Our obligation to protect another human being from harm does not increase with his or her size or maturation. If anything, the reverse is true. The more vulnerable a person is to being oppressed and mistreated by those more powerful, the greater our responsibility to protect him or her.

To argue from the fact of spontaneous abortions (the natural expulsion of zygotes from the womb) to the conclusion that the intentional destruction of embryos is therefore moral, is to commit what's called the naturalistic fallacy. Many of the degenerative diseases that proponents of embryonic stem cell research are hoping to cure occur naturally but I don't think the Times would therefore conclude that it would be moral to afflict individuals with those diseases if we had the ability to do so. What's the difference?

The editorial proceeds to advance its discriminatory agenda when it says:

These blastocysts, as they are called, bear none of the attributes we associate with humanity and, sitting outside the womb, have no chance of developing into babies. Some people consider them clumps of cells no different than other biological research materials. Others would grant them special respect but still make them available for worthy research. But Mr. Bush is imposing his different
moral code on both, thereby slowing research that most consider potentially beneficial.

How foolish and/or deceitful can one be? Blastocysts bear all of the attributes associated with humanity at that stage of human development. The issue isn't what some people consider them. The issue is what they actually are. Some people consider members of certain minority groups inferior. Some consider children desirable sexual partners. Some consider the Holocaust a fictitious event. Others even consider it a good event. What do any of those statements tell us about the objects of consideration? Nothing. But they tell us much about those doing the considering.

Rational Religionists and Scientific Mystics

Volume 73 of the Mars Hill Audio Journal arrived today. I try my best to keep my composure when others are in the office but when I see that white mailing pouch I want to rip into it like a kid into candy.

In the first segment Ken Myers plays clips from past interviews with Richard Neuhaus, Nigel Cameron, Carlos Gomez, and Michael Uhlmann concerning the value of human life and bioethics. The conversation with Nigel Cameron took place in 2001. I believe it was in that same conversation that Cameron opined that the evangelical pro-life movement is driven more by sentimentality than by theological reflection. I think that explains why we get more worked up about abortion than embryonic stem cell research. "Cute" is hardly the first adjective to come to mind when confronted by a picture of an embryo.

Anyway, at one point in the segment Ken Myers referred to the writing of Eric Cohen, editor of The New Atlantis, which prompted me to check out the site. There I found a number of essays by Cohen including his contribution to a series called "The Embryo Question."

Points made in the second part of the series are related to yesterday's post and a previous post on alleged religious neutrality. Cohen explains why framing the current debate over embryonic stem cell research as a conflict between religion and science "glosses over many important complexities."

....matters, of course, are not so simple. Religious opponents of embryo research make their moral argument by appealing rationally to the facts of modern embryology. And rational scientists make their moral case by appealing emotionally to the hardships of loved ones suffering from dreaded diseases. To understand the embryo research debate and the larger human ideals at stake within it, we need to explore more precisely what it means to be “rational.” We need to explore the nature of human reason and the limits of human reason. And we need to confront the fact that reason alone cannot fully explain why things happen the way they do, or why we should believe in the first principles—like human equality—that we hold so dear.

Cohen divides advocates of embryonic stem cell research into two categories - scientific mystics and liberal revolutionaries:

The mystics argue that “personhood” arrives at some murky point along the continuum of development. They appeal to our moral sentiments in claiming that 8-cell embryos should be available for research while 8-pound babies should not be. And they assert that somewhere along the way usable embryos become inviolable infants, even if we cannot say exactly when. But this sensibility—which may be true—is not very rational. It is surely not a scientific argument grounded in biology, but a moral feeling about who is equal and who is not. The scientists are often the mystics, even if they would never admit it.
The more revolutionary defense of embryo research involves the rejection of the very principle that all human beings possess equal worth, and the assertion that human dignity depends on possessing certain attributes—like a developed neurological capacity or a certain number of cells. This view does not abandon reason to follow sentiment; rather, it attacks the very premise that dignity is intrinsic rather than conditional. It attacks the first principle of equality upon which modern democracy is based. It dissents from the idea that “all men are created equal.”

Read the full article here.

Hiding Behind Science

Prompted by today's Beyond the News commentary by Al Mohler and Melinda Penner's post on two bills before the House of Representatives, I called my state representative's office today to voice my opposition to H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This bill would extend federal funding for research using embryos created by in vitro fertilization but no longer wanted by their parents. Congressman Kirk backs the bill.

A press release at Representative Kirk's website quotes him as saying: “We need to pass legislation opening more opportunities for federal stem cell research to accelerate cures for these diseases. With stem cell research now happening overseas, we have a moral obligation to find cures here at home.” Sounds to me like Rep. Kirk is relying on foreign countries as the moral compass for United States policy: "Since they're doing it, we have a moral obligation to do it too!" Never mind that what they're doing is immoral. I seriously doubt that if foreign countries were killing the homeless and using their body parts for medical research that promised great potential, Congressman Kirk would argue that the U.S. has a moral obligation to follow suit. Before we jump on the international bandwagon, we should make sure it's heading in the right direction. No one doubts the obligation to relieve and prevent suffering where possible. The dispute is over the lengths to which we should be willing to go in order to accomplish that. Like many others, I believe that we should pursue those means which do not sacrifice the lives of some for the sake of others.

The above-mentioned press release also quotes Representative Judy Biggert (also from Illinois), a senior member of the House Science Committee, as saying, "It’s time we allow researchers to go where the science leads and not where the politicians dictate." Proof positive that one need not understand science in order to be a member of the Science Committee. Congresswoman Biggert would have us believe that we are so at the whim of technology that we blindly follow wherever it leads. There are at least two problems with this. First, I doubt that if pressed, Ms. Biggert would argue that we should make use of whatever technological abilities we possess. All sorts of devastation could be justified using that reasoning. The greater problem, however, is that science doesn't lead anyone anywhere in the sense that Ms. Biggert suggests. We lead science. It does not have a life of its own. Our interests, desires, values, and goals determine the direction of our inquiry. Science does not, nor can it, tell us what we must do. Let's not fool ourselves. If we end up sacrificing the most vulnerable members of our species for the sake of others, it will not be because "science has led us." It will be because we chose the course.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the Question of Compassion

With South Korea's recent announcement of successfully creating embryonic clones from the skin cells of diseased patients and talk of an impending bill pushing for federal funding of research using "excess" embryos from fertilization clinics, embryonic stem cell research is once again a major news item.

Below is a letter I wrote to Newsweek in response to their July 9, 2001 cover story on the subject. Even though it's four years old, the points made remain relevant to the current debate.

The original article is no longer available online. While searching for it, however, I did come across an elementary school curriculum written to be used in tandem with the Newsweek issue. Its introduction reads:

This week's Newsweek raises philosophical questions about what constitutes human life and about the nature of humanity. Among other topics, students will read about stem cell research; the extradition of Slobodan Milosevic, who will stand trial for crimes against humanity; and the brutal slaughter of Jews by their Polish neighbors in 1941.
Working with this content, students will explore the themes of Humanity, Responsibility and Decision-Making. Activities involve defining a human being, evaluating their own responsibilities as citizens and exploring the process of decision-making.

The class activity tagged to the article on embryonic stem cell research illustrates the confusion that surrounds the process. Students are given a chart with two columns labeled "Human" and "Not Human" along with the following instructions: "In the column labeled "Human," list the arguments that stem cells are, in fact, human. In the other column, list the arguments that they are not." This gives children the false impression that the debate is over whether stem cells are human beings when in actuality that's not what's in question. Opponents to embryonic stem cell research do not maintain that individual stem cells are human beings. Resistance is due to the fact that the human embryos destroyed in the process of extracting stem cells are distinct human beings.

To further clear the fog surrounding this critical issue, check out Joe Carter's "The Bioethics of Therapeutic Cloning: A Brief Primer on the Issues."

***************

In her cover story, "Cellular Divide" (Newsweek, July 9), Sharon Begley presents a superb example of the logical fallacy known as false dilemma. This occurs when only two alternatives are presented when in actuality three or more options exist. Concerning the divergent views of embryonic life, Ms. Begley writes:

If you are a passionate right-to-life activist, you see in the cells an incipient human life, one deserving all the rights and respect of any other human…If, though you suffer from a currently incurable disease like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer's or love someone who does, then those cells look very different; they look like the seeds of hope, tiny miracles able to dance on the head of a pin.

This suggests that either one contends for the humanity of the pre-born and is therefore unsympathetic toward those afflicted by various degenerative diseases or one's life is touched by disease (either directly or by association) and he or she denies that the embryo is a distinct human being deserving of protection. This is patently false.

I'm sure Russell Saltzman would be perplexed to learn that everyone must fit neatly in one of these two camps. Although he got nowhere the media coverage that celebrities like Michael J. Fox and Mary Tyler Moore received, Russell, a Kansas City minister with diabetes, testified before a Senate committee expressing his opposition to stem cell research. Ron Heagy is further evidence of the false dichotomy Ms. Begley presents. Having become a paraplegic at 17, it can hardly be said that he is disinterested in advances in medical technology. He too voiced his opposition to the federal funding of stem cell research before the Senate committee. "I'm not opposed to research," he said, "I'm not opposed to walking again. I'm just opposed to the process." Then there's Anton-Lewis Usala. It's ridiculous to categorize him as an overzealous pro-life advocate with no personal interest in the hope held out by stem cell research. Usala, a medical doctor and research scientist, also has diabetes yet considers the pre-born life that would be terminated in harvesting stem cells human beings who should not be exploited for the benefit of others in the race. "For the first time," he testified, "the perceived right of the government will supersede the right of the individual."

Russell Saltzman hit the nail on the head when he noted that the critical question is whether the human embryo is a human being or a "mere bit of research material." It is clear from Ms. Begley's article that proponents of this controversial scientific research deny the former. Even Sen. Orrin Hatch whom Ms. Begley describes as "as anti-abortion as they come," inconsistently denies the personhood and rights of the embryos whose stem cells would be harvested. "A frozen embryo stored in a refrigerator in a clinic just isn't the same as a fetus developing in a mother's womb." Unfortunately, Sen. Hatch does not tell us how this is at all ethically significant. Sure, the embryo and the fetus in question are not in the same environment. But what does that have to do with the humanity of either of them? They are both distinct human beings with gender and unique genetic identities. What I'd like to know from Sen. Hatch is since when is physical location determinative of whether an entity is human? Is a human being in a refrigerator less a human being than one somewhere else? Changing where something is doesn't change what it is. If I drive my car out of the garage and park it in my dining room, it's still a car.

The only other difference between the embryo and the fetus is that they are at different stages of human development. But again, this is morally irrelevant. Humans do not become more human with the passing of time. To say that an embryo is different from a fetus is analogous to saying that an infant is different from an adolescent. Both are different points on the continuum of human development.

Begley also quotes Irv Weissman, a biologist at Stanford University. Like Hatch, Weissman appeals to the location of the embryos as if it had any ethical significance. According to him, "Anyone who would ban research on embryonic stem cells will be responsible for the harm done to real, alive, postnatal, sentient human beings who might be helped by this research." Obviously, Weissman doesn't regard the embryos as real people, but on what grounds? Scientifically, there's no doubt that the embryo is alive. The fact that it is prenatal is again an appeal to the stage of maturation, which we have already seen has nothing to do with whether or not a particular being is a human being. And if one argues that one must be sentient in order to be worthy of protection, then we'd best all start sleeping with one eye open.

Ms. Begley concludes by noting that banning stem cell research, while upholding an "extreme view of the sanctity of life," would be at the expense of "doing all we can to improve the lot of the living." This assumes, of course, that human embryos are not human beings and should therefore be used as objects for the benefit of others. All that remains is for Ms. Begley and others of like mind to offer logically and ethically compelling arguments for their position.

Stem Cells & The Myth of Religious Neutrality

An article by Nicholas Wade in today's NY Times perpetuates the fallacious notion that religious belief is inherently antagonistic to scientific progress. It also sustains the popularly held opinion (unfortunately, even among some Christians) that those who profess adherence to a particular religion are irrationally biased while the members of the scientific community are objective, dealing only with hard facts and free from unscientific precommitments.

The article reports that the National Academy of Science yesterday proposed a list of ethical guidelines for performing embryonic stem cell research (hereafter ESCR). They believed this was necessary in the absence of leadership from the federal government. The following excerpt displays the "good, objective, science/bad, irrational, religion" dichotomy:

Scientists have high hopes that research with those all-purpose cells, which develop into all the various tissues of the adult body, will lead to treatments for a wide variety of diseases by enabling them to grow new organs to replace damaged ones.
But because of religious objections - human embryos shortly after fertilization are destroyed to derive the cells - Congress has long restricted federal financing of such research; President Bush has allowed it to proceed, but only with designated cells. As a result, the government has not played its usual role of promoting novel research and devising regulations accepted by all players.

It would be more accurate to say that many scientists are optimistic about ESCR's potential and are eager to proceed. Wade gives the impression that there is a consensus among researchers concerning the promise and ethics of this research. But this simply isn't true. The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, for example, consists of numerous researchers and physicians who question both its potential benefits and its ethical permissibility. You can read their reasons here. (See also the Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity in the links section to the right.)

The following quote from Dr. David Baltimore, president of the California Institute of Technology is further evidence of an assumed antagonism between scientific progress and religion:

This shows how far this country has gone toward being controlled by religious precepts rather than scientific opportunity.....It is a terrible omen for our being able to maintain our position as the country that leads in biomedical technology.

Dr. Baltimore's comments also represent the widespread insistence that religious convictions have no place in the shaping of public life. As long as religious beliefs are privatized, giving individuals a sense of purpose and meaning, they can be tolerated. But the moment religion claims to be a source of knowledge about the nature of things and how things ought to be, it has overstepped its boundaries. Religious conviction is like a puppy being housebroken. It's cute and tolerable when it stays on the paper but all hell breaks loose if it steps over the edge onto the linoleum.

I suspect Dr. Baltimore and his cohorts would vehemently deny that their conclusions concerning the ethics of ESCR are products of their own religious beliefs but I think that's the case and I'll tell you why.

Earlier this month a post by Macht at Prosthesis prompted me to reread portions of a book whose argument I find persuasive. The book is Roy Clouser's The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories. Clouser maintains that all theorizing, whether scientific or philosophical, rests on presuppositions that are essentially religious. According to Clouser:

This means that theories about math and physics, sociology and economics, art and ethics, politics and law can never be religiously neutral. They are all regulated by some religious belief. The effects of religious beliefs therefore extend far beyond providing the hope for life after death or influencing moral values and judgments. By controlling theory making, they produce important differences in the interpretation or issues that range over the whole of life.

What makes belief religious? Clouser addresses this question in his first chapter. He rejects popularly held ideas that in order to count as religious a belief system must include an explicit ethical code or inspire worship. The ancient Epicureans, for example, acknowledged the existence of gods but did not believe they cared about human affairs. Japanese Shintoism is a more contemporary counterexample.

Clouser also denies that religion is characterized by belief in a Supreme Being, noting that Hinduism's concept of the divine (Brahman-Atman) is not considered a being but rather "the being-ness or "being-itself" which is in all individual beings and which makes them possible."

What is common to all religion is belief in the divine, where "the divine is whatever does not depend on anything else for its existence, so all that is not divine depends for its existence on the divine." According to this definition, matter would be "the divine" in a materialistic philosophy, not because it is regarded as deity but because it that which is considered by materialists as that upon which all else is dependent and in terms of which all else can be explained. This is why, in a previous post, I presented the affirmation of materialist philosophy in the form of a religious creed.If Clouser is right, then it's really silly to talk about whether religious belief has any place in shaping public life. The more appropriate question becomes whose religious belief will be applied.

Even if one rejects Clouser's thoughts concerning what constitutes religious belief, the fact remains that all theorizing rests on presuppositions or ultimate commitments concerning the nature of reality, knowledge, and ethics. The assumptions made in one of these areas has consequences for the other two. For example, if one presupposes a materialistic universe, it follows that there are no such things as ethical absolutes and thus some form of ethical relativism will be appealed to. Nor will revelation be considered a valid source of knowledge since there is no supernatural personality from which revelation could come.

Proponents of ESCR would have us believe that theirs is the objective, religiously-neutral, and compassionate stance. I wonder. Is it not at all possible that they have been blinded, and that not by science?