This is the kind of stuff that encourages churches to fill their members with hate for about 75% of the rest of the world.
It serves no purpose to fight research on undeveloped accidental pregnancies.
You could save some real lives if you spent your time fighting wars, something that kills millions of adults and maims millions more. Much of these wars are also brought on by church doctrines of various religions.
When you don't understand something, leave it to the professionals to work out and present. It is going to happen anyway if it can be done.

"This is the kind of stuff that encourages churches to fill their members with hate for about 75% of the rest of the world."

I just laid out a very thoughtful, scientific and philosophic case against Embryonic Stem Cell Research, and you didn't even attempt to refute one iota of it. Instead you decided to attack me for being pro-war, a complete assumption on your part. In fact, I would like to thank you for your argument. The fact that you are choosing to attack me instead of my argument tells me that my science and philosophy are so sound that you can't touch it. That encourages me, but it doesn't really get us anywhere in this debate. I thought we were debating stem cell research - now you want to switch to a debate on war? I'd prefer we stick with stem cell research for now, the subject of the article.

Also, in the case I made for the unborn, I never mentioned the church. The closest thing to it was a request for pro-life people to pray for an to ESCR. My case against ESCR has nothing to do with the Bible. I don't need the Bible to make a case against ESCR - I'd rather stick with science and philosophy. That's why I'm confused that you would start your post by spewing about how hateful church-goers are to most of the world. (An assertion that has absolutely no fact behind it, but I'll let that one go, because it's beside the point.) Don't attack me, and don't attack people that go to church. You don't even know if I go to church. Instead, attack my science and philosophy.

"It serves no purpose to fight research on undeveloped accidental pregnancies."

This statement is rather ignorant. First of all, the research isn't performed on pregnancies; they are performed on living human beings at the embryo stage of development. Secondly, Embryonic Stem Cell Research isn't always performed on embryos that are the result of accidental pregnancies; many times these embryos are leftovers from in vitro fertilization.

Since you only referred to the research on tissues taken from aborted fetuses, let's talk about that a second. 1st trimester abortions aren't done earlier than 6 weeks into a pregnancy, according to the nation's leading abortionist, Dr. Warren Hern. (this is because earlier abortions would be medically unsafe for the mother.) So were' talking about fetuses that were 6 weeks or older when they were dismembered. These "undeveloped" fetuses, as you call them, had a fully-functioning heart and measurable brain activity before the abortion. In fact, the baby grows so fast during the second month of pregnancy that if he or she continued to grow at that same rate, he/she would be born the size of a pair of overfed elephants! "Undeveloped" is not what I could call a human being at this stage of life; just less developed then you and I. That's no reason to kill someone.

"When you don't understand something, leave it to the professionals to work out and present."

You haven't provided any evidence that I don't understand the issue of stem cell research. I must understand something as I can speak about the issue for hours on end, thus I must understand something. (unless I was just preaching propaganda the whole time...lol)

It is going to happen anyway if it can be done."

That is a very poor reason not to be against something. For example, it is possible to implant human DNA into the brain of an ape. According to your line of reasoning, it can be done, thus it will happen and we shouldn't say anything against it, right?

Welcome to our little Mad House, Josh! Thank you for your well thought out and reasoned responses.

Just so you know, dollaradayandfound is on record as disliking Christians (and about everybody else for that matter) so his comments come as no surprise to us regulars.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Tell Senior El Presidente no to amnesty!

I think humans should be protected also. That is why I spend my time questioning unneeded wars.
As usual you people bring up six month old babies whose brains are crushed instead of basic research on items that are automatically destroyed by the millions every day. It is a religious ploy, I tell you.
By the way I was raised Christian, it has nothing to do with aborted embryos, but certainly does with the vicious killing by warring. People have a right to children or not and most choose that every day.

I think humans should be protedted [sic] also
"Also"? Embryos are humans too! That's scientific fact.

That is why I spend my time questioning unneeded wars.
Fine that's your right as an American.

As usual you people bring up six month old babies whose brains are crushed instead of basic research on items that are automatically destroyed by the millions every day. It is a religious ploy, I tell you.
What??? You admit that "babies whose brains are crushed" but then you don't care? Is that what you mean?

By the way I was raised Christian.
So? You certainly didn't retain that then.

Edit: $ added this as I was composing this message:
People have a right to children or not and most choose that every day.
You're confusing the issue (again!) $! This is about ESCR not abortion. But to answer your statement, yeah sure, people have the right to decide whether to get pregnant or not (or to impregnate someone) but that doesn't give them the right to kill uhh...excuse me..."terminate" the pregnancy simply because they want to! Science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the living being in the womb is 100% human and genetically distinct from the mother.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell Senior El Presidente no to amnesty!

And neither did you! (Your link is broken).

I looked at the page source and note that you are attempting to link to stemcell dot org.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that it's one of those fake "research" sites to advance the Christianist agenda of faith-based science!

LINK: Another phony conservative 'research' organization: stemcellresearch.org

Your gonna have to do better than that, Paul!
______________________________________________
Sunlight causes cancer. I don't plan on living underground like some on here. -Bad PTC, responding to a typical "The Sky is Falling!" post from Denise Connor

then it would a legit source???
Let me show you why your logic is really flawed on this point.

If I were say moveon.org is a "fake" site because Soros funds it, that would do nothing to refute the site's factual material.

Whether George Bush or George Soros control the site you debate the independent facts quoted.
Seems as though I remember this quote from you when I offered an example of a provable spinal cord cure from adult stem cells.

anecdotal evidence doesn't replace cold hard statistical analysis.

However, when I a link to a peer reviewed study with over 90 clinical cases your "rebuttal" is to attack who owns the site name !!

Normally, you are more of a worthy debate foe than this. Attack the site owner's statement of opinion - fine. But I'm not arguing from the opinion but from the independent study they quote. The same study which was quoted to the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space Sept, 2004 by Dr. Prentice.

I understand it's a lot easier stereotype the site owner that to refute scientific studies, but unless your willing to accept a "it's bad because Soros provided the funding argument" you need expect of your own arguments what you demand of others.

BTW-here's the correct link (HTML is not my strong suit).

Dr Prentice's testimony before Congress

Last BTW-In checking the accuracy of pharyngula site, I found a number of errors. You may want to double check this source. To limit them to this topic, it's a blatant untruth to claim that pro-lifers oppose this research. The Truth is we're all for it. We only oppose the kind of research the kills innocent human life.
________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

I see where you're coming from Paul re: impugning sources. I get frustrated myself from time to time when I go to great pains to document my position only to have Christianist elitists sniff and dismiss my documented facts by saying "Oh, well it's the New York Times, they're biased". As a rule, it's a fundamentally weak reply.

Having said that, I feel that your ersatz "stemcellresearch" site is exceptionally dishonest in nature. To put things in perspective: suppose we were to discuss some aspect of Christianity. As a ground rule, I'd permit discussion of the Bible, but only if Biblical analysis were to come from a site that specialized in Athesists critiquing the Bible. I think you'd have to admit there is literally a built-in significant bias there.

I feel the same holds true with your "stemcellresearch" site. They don't even do original research there, they collate and "interpret" the conclusions of the research of others. Like the atheist example above, there's a built-in bias in favor of adult stem cell research. In at least one example (from my previous link) they took the documented research of one scientist and extrapolated a conclusion that was the exact OPPOSITE of what the scientist in question concluded. That smacks of intellectual dishonesty, to me anyways.

Your reliance upon your "stemcellresearch" site is essentially using their bias and editorial commentary to support your own bias and editorial commentary.

Further, for me to accept your "stemcellresearch" site as a valid source of science would necessitate me agreeing (tacitly or explicitly) in their fundamental premise that it is somehow "wrong" to harvest embryos. We've been over this ground before. I'll admit that you have a very strong argument, but in the end, it fails the simplest of tests: the "smell" test.

Like I've said before my "burning building" scenario where you are forced to make a moral choice in a burning building: you can either save a dozen embryos or a crying two year old. By your logic, the greater good to humanity would be accomplished by saving a dozen embryos. By my "flawed" logic, saving a crying two year old at the expense of a dozen embryos is indefensible from a moral standpoint. I can sleep easily with the consequences of my choice. Can you?

Final note: I attempted to read some of the underlying research cited in the PDF "bibliography extract". There was quite a bit of duplication there, btw. I was unable to locate a single study online, save for some brief extracts. I'd be interested in looking at one of these original studies to see if the conclusions "match" those of your "stemcellresearch" folks.

______________________________________________
Sunlight causes cancer. I don't plan on living underground like some on here. -Bad PTC, responding to a typical "The Sky is Falling!" post from Denise Connor

Proving that very little is impossible, we have come to one thing that we both agree on - the "myth" of neutrality.

You acknowledged the NY Times as having a predetermined agenda in the news (why else would you bury a foiled terrorist plot on page 37) and I acknowledge a basis in any number of pro-life sites.

The truth is that we all bring a basis or at least a mindset to any subject. But again, I not putting forth their opinion(s), but a third party medical study that just happens to be on their site. You raise a good point when you say "I'd be interested in looking at one of these original studies to see if the conclusions "match" those of your "stemcellresearch" folks."

BTW-So far they all have checked out.

I do wonder though if you'd do site research (about bias) if I quoted from moveon.org. I've often said that they do have some good arguments against the Patriot Act and have subsequently been disbarred from some conservative clubs.

for me to accept your "stemcellresearch" site as a valid source of science would necessitate me agreeing (tacitly or explicitly) in their fundamental premise that it is somehow "wrong" to harvest embryos. We've been over this ground before. I'll admit that you have a very strong argument, but in the end, it fails the simplest of tests: the "smell" test.

Now you have the one question that counts. Maybe you've got an answer on how someone with HUMAN DNA, from HUMAN parents is something other than HUMAN.
I would really like to see this evidence.

I notice Josh Brahm has posted to this thread

Answer his one question and you'll answer mine as well.

If the embryo is human, then no justification for ESCR is adequate. On the converse side, if the embryo is NOT human, then no justification is necessary! By all means, kill it! That would be no different morally then having a mole removed, or a tooth pulled.

So my challenge to those that are on the other side of this issue from me is this: Prove, using good science and philosophy, that my case is wrong. You can't just cast doubt on the idea that the embryo is human, because if we don't know what something is, we should give the benefit of the doubt to life. Prove that the embryo is not human and shouldn't have the same rights that everyone else has, and you'll win the debate.

Awaiting the above facts,
PP

Getting a little off on a tangent here. I think there are different levels of bias, ranging from perceived bias to actual bias.

Let's take a look at "perceived bias" first. The New York Times has a largely liberal editorial page. I think we can both agree on that, the occasional Safire squib or Kristof blurb notwithstanding. This causes lesser developed humans to conclude that the rest of the newspaper likewise shows a liberal bias. I disagree. Another example would be the Wall Street Journal. They feature a juvenile right-wing editorial page that is far removed from reality. Yet few people would presume that their excellent news coverage was tainted by their editorial excrement.

At the next level are admittedly partisan sites. Moveon.org, the Freepers, DemocraticUnderground and RedState are all partisan sites dedicated to advancing their particular causes. They wear their bias like a badge of honor.

At the bottom of the barrel are astroturf sites and disguised advocacy sites. These include those sites paid for by ExxonMobil who "prove" global warming is a myth, pro-tobacco sites that claim smoking really isn't bad for you and sites like stemcellresearch that take pains to disguise their bias and instead present themselves as "fair and balanced".

Just my two cents from a guy with a pocketful of change.
______________________________________________
Sunlight causes cancer. I don't plan on living underground like some on here. -Bad PTC, responding to a typical "The Sky is Falling!" post from Denise Connor

and it seems to be showing in your last post.

Your point about the different levels of mindset is a valid one.
You might enjoy the book

Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News as it address your main points.

We seem to have gotten off the one question that any destroying of innocent human life for the gain of others is wrong.

I might be able to persuade a speaker on this subject to return to Fayetteville.

Do you know someone who would represent your views?

Is the other side up for a formal debate on the facts??

All of us in the same physical forum - the library could become very popular!

Like I've said before my "burning building" scenario where you are forced to make a moral choice in a burning building: you can either save a dozen embryos or a crying two year old. By your logic, the greater good to humanity would be accomplished by saving a dozen embryos. By my "flawed" logic, saving a crying two year old at the expense of a dozen embryos is indefensible from a moral standpoint. I can sleep easily with the consequences of my choice. Can you?

That's quite clearly an "Appeal to emotion" logical fallacy which leads to red herrings (arguing over which is more valuable -- a toddler or embryos [both are people]) and ad hominem attacks (you'd rather save embryos? cruel you!).

(Little side note: if you are so "for the children!" why are you so pro-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell research that kills children? Hmm?)

I hope we aren't keeping track of all your logical fallacies...you'd definitely be on the losing side!

Wanna try again and argue FACTS and LOGIC and keep the tired little emotional appeals (rape and incest, mother's health, ad nauseum) out of this debate?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Tell Senior El Presidente no to amnesty!

Article about Adult stem cell fraud...even when it's "peer reviewed"

Volley,
Serve.
______________________________________________
Sunlight causes cancer. I don't plan on living underground like some on here. -Bad PTC, responding to a typical "The Sky is Falling!" post from Denise Connor

I'm glad Ms. Rabons cured her spinal problem with adult stem cells. Also sorry for the loss of the embryonic stem cell recipients. Anecdotal evidence is so....vivid!

It does have the value of being real.

Your link references Hwang Woo-suk who was not endorsed or quoted by Josh. In addition to being a professional con, Woo-suk's only real attempt at fame was to claim that he "had successfully obtained stem cells from cloned human embryos."

The presentation pointed out that this is exactly the kind of fraud that is being used to get governmental funding for esc. The reason is simple. Most private funding is now going into adult stem cell research (and cord blood studies) that show real tangible results in the foreseeable future.

The "invisible hand" of capitalism is chocking out the esc research funding because it, at least currently, offers no answers vs.a potential 72 cures through adult stem cells.

BTW-You've may have notice no one has discredited the Peer Study I posted.

returned volley
rushing the net

_______________________________________________________________

Our technology has outgrown our conscience. We have guided missiles but misguided men.

Some say the dinos were first, long before man. That they disappeared before man was created (evolved?).
That destroys all of my pleasure with the old TV show with Barney, Fred, Wilma, etc., men and women who ate and rode dinos!
What was left for the old cave men to hunt, by the way? Were they grass and bark eaters?
Were the cave men descendants of Adam and Eve, or of Kain and his crowd, who must have married cave women?
There weren't enough caves in Africa or Babylonia for all those people, so what do you suppose they did for shelter? Tents weren't invented until sometime just before Saint Paul, the tent maker, came along.
The earth is about 7 billion years of age according to radiation aging. Those first 6 billion, nine hundred million, ninety-3 years. and 6 days, must have been dull!
Fact is, I simply don't need to know, and couldn't understand if someone told me about history. I worry more about the future than the past.

Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

Most scientists who actually use Carbon-14 will tell you that they consider it reliable only within a 15,000-45,000 year range. That said, quite a number of other dating methods such as salt concentration in the oceans, helium in the atmosphere, measured decay in the earth's magnet field all give dates that are far less than what macro-evolution (bacteria to bugs to bees to boys) would require.

The real scientific truth is that all dating methods (both those that seem to show young and old dates) are based upon fallible assumptions that cannot be proven.

Some examples (used in all methods) are:

Decay rates have always been constant.
Starting conditions are known precisely
No outside factors (volcanic activity) have altered the the CO2 or mix of elements.

Link: How "young earth" proponents attempt to discredit Carbon-14 dating through dubious and obsolete theories such as "salt concentration", "helium in the atmosphere", "lava flows" and "decaying magnetic fields"
______________________________________________
Look at my avatar. Does that look like a "human being" to you?

If you were referring to a previous post I made, I took care to note that all dating methods have assumptions that are unprovable. That covers both sides.

Thanks for the site link though - I found this quote from your friend there. The relative order of the strata was first determined by the principles of stratification A bad case of circular reasoning. Maybe this is one of these hacks site with poor research.
_________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

Look at my avatar. Does that look like a "human being" to you?

Bas- It looks JUST like you did at that age.
Are you human?

________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

Forgot to ask this in the last post.

Since you are advancing the argument that looks may determine humanity.
Do you consider someone who has had a disfiguring accident no longer human because of their looks? You may be sliding down a slippery slope.

Look at my avatar. Does that look like a "human being" to you?

Bas- It looks JUST like you did at that age.
Are you human?

_________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

On Universal age, how about the age old question of starlight? At night, we can look up in the sky and look at stars that are millions and millions of light years away. That light had to travel here in order to be seen. On the creation end, I have read an excellent theory about how stars might have aged millions of years while the earth only aged days that involved white holes and event horizons.
However, as someone well studied in scripture, I actually see no reason why an earth millions of years old can't be scriptural. Scripturally, the Bible simply does not demand any universal age, though you could interpret it that way if you really want to. However, the Bible wasn't meant to answer every little question about history, a definitive book would take millions of pages. The Bible was written as a simple outline of history, with the real intent of the book being focused on the salvage of torn relationship.

You may be referring to the book Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe by Dr. Russ Humphreys. If not, I would highly recommend it to you. Dr. Humphreys' work with Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics is great reading and he does propose some ways time could proceed at different rates.

For someone who is a Christian (and by definition believes the Bible) the timing matters a lot. There are a number of reasons, but let me list just a couple.

the Bible wasn't meant to answer every little question about history, a definitive book would take millions of pages. The Bible was written as a simple outline of history...

True but where the Bible deals with history it is correct.

From Christian theology we know:

Death,disease, and suffering are a result of man's sin (i.e. they did not exist before the fall)
The fossil record contains evidence of death and disease (certain bone deformities etc.)
God pronounced his creation (before the fall) to be -not just good- but very good ...

thus if there were millions of years with death,disease, and suffering ( the byproducts of sin) before the creation of man you would not have a creation the was good at all.

Some of our friends within the Christian community are so desperate to create this gap of millions of years they have theorized that a pre-Adamic non human race was created and fell into sin before Adam.

It's best to stick with the revealed truth we have vs. bizzare theories that come from theoretical sources.

Exactly the book. And, though he goes into a mathematical explanation, I really didn't spend much time with that. I understand the math, but it was deeper reading than I cared about.
True, there are reasons in the Bible to believe in a young earth, no argument there. However, the point was that there is nothing in the Bible that definitively precludes an older earth, only theories. If, somehow, it was one day proven that the earth was old (similar to the historical proving of a central sun), that would not in any way negate God's word, only the young earth proponents.
I do believe that the gov. schools are wrong in teaching only evolution, but not because children should be taught only truth. Children should be taught how to think for themselves. They should be presented with ALL sides of any issue and taught the critical thinking skills to figure out for themselves what they believe. In a classroom, one child should be given evolution, another child creation, and then hold a discussion where each side tries to prove they are right. In another discussion, one child should be pro and the other anti-abortion. Children should be taught to look at all sides, to logically try to prove all sides, to think for themselves - not be told what to think. Children should be taught how to spot fallacies, how to argue without anger, how to approach issues with an open mind.

Sorry, but I just can't reconcile that sort of literal reading of Genesis--a young earth and all of that--with the evidence of age that comes from a variety of causally independent sources.

I've heard some of the young-earth proponents challenge everything from carbon dating to triangulation, and they've arrived at some clever solutions. But the result is unparsimonious and has all of the earmarks of being ad hoc.

In his "Diary of Adam and Eve," Mark Twain had Eve worrying over the vultures. She reasoned that they seemed designed to eat carrion, but, since there was no such thing as death as yet, they were getting rather hungry.

Are we really to think that, prior to the Fall, it was impossible for, say, a clumsy wildebeast to trip into a swollen river and drown?

Interestingly, some of the most compelling arguments for design presuppose big bang cosmology and the so-called anthropic coincidences.

And what of Big Bang cosmology?
What of it? If you studied recent developments in cosmology you will see that the big bang is falling out of favor with a number of scientists who are not religious by anyone's definition.

Sounds like you have not really looked at both sides of the question. I noticed that Perkins made a comment in this thread that we all bring a mindset to every issue. Put another way, we all have the same evidence such as the fossil record, evidences of a global flood, etc.

If you'll look over Dr. Humphreys' work and related sites, you may find the the young earth creation model is a more logical fit for explaining the physical reasons for the ice age, location of certain types of fossils, etc.

The big bang would presume an even distribution of matter in the universe and a tendency for matter to be drawn together. In truth, what we observe in the physical universe is just the opposite.

Are we really to think that, prior to the Fall, it was impossible for, say, a clumsy wildebeast to trip into a swollen river and drown?

If one has any real comprehension of what Christianity claims about God - sure, death never entered the world before sin. Understandability this is hard to visualize since we've only seen the world after the fall.

In his "Diary of Adam and Eve," Mark Twain had Eve worrying over the vultures.

If you are getting you theology from Twain, you may have a hard time ever understanding the above.

I would suggest getting some works like the one's referenced above and learning both sides of this. Let me know if you need to know where to look.

Well, I can't say that I get my theology from Mark Twain. But he is a lot more readable than most theologians!

I am wondering which scientists you have in mind who are challenging the big bang. There are not a few who are holding out for an oscillating model, which dodges the seeming theological implications of standard big bang theory.

You mention one bit of seeming contrary evidence: the suggestion that big bang theory leads us to expect a homogeneous universe but we find instead clumping and gaps. But I believe that the current wisdom here is that, while homogeneity might not be observed within a limited scope, it is found when we consider things on a huge scale. (Consider: a repeating numerical pattern might not be recognized as a pattern if we focus on a small segment of it, but does so when we see it on a larger scale.)

As for my own reading, Paul Davies and John Leslie come readily to mind. From a theistic perspective, William Lane Craig's work on big bang cosmology (and the Kalam cosmological argument)and Robin Collins' excellent work on fine-tuning are helpful. Craig and Collins draw from primary sources in a way that I do not, so I admit to being something of an "armchair cosmologist."

I guess that I have at least a modicum of understanding of Christian theology. I just do not see that the young earth view is either essential to a robust version of that theology (I particularly do not see how an understanding of theology proper has direct entailments regarding the extinction of the dinosaurs), nor do I find it to be any more plausible (from an extra-biblical perspective) than the geocentrism that, believe it or not, is still defended by some on the basis of an over-literal reading of the Bible.

As I said before, the arguments of people like, say, Ken Ham come off as ad hoc after a while. Contemporary cosmology has parsimony on its side.

Oscillating model; dodges the seeming theological implications; homogenous universe;we find instead clumping and gaps;homogeniety might not be observed within a limited scope; Collins fine work on "fine-tuning";understanding of theology proper has direct entailments to the extinction of the dinos; extra-bibical perspective than the geo-centrism; ad hoc and parsimony are on its side---I may have got that last part wrong, I dazed.
What do it mean as a sentence?

You know, if they are going to teach evolution in gov. schools, they should teach all of it.
Under evolution, no two beings, no two races can evolve at the same rate. According to evolution, I or you have to be more evolved; We can not be equal, that is entirely a Biblical concept. Similarly, under evolution, no two races can be equal, evolution demands that one race be more evolved (superior) over another.
Teach that in government schools.

Was Adam one race and Eve another?
Or, did twenty or more colors and races crawl out of the ocean and evolve differently?
I'm confused about that.
Maybe some of us aren't legitimate people? Fakers, so to speak.
Is more evolved, superior? Not sure about that either.
Why was such a mess done?

Similarly, under evolution, no two races can be equal, evolution demands that one race be more evolved (superior) over another.

Let me just quote the actual title of Darwin's book as published.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life by Charles Darwin
_

Note Darwin's choice of words which he explains in detail in his best known work.

In no way am I saying that every evolutionist is a racist. But Darwin states that he believed exactly what you said in your post about races evolving at different levels. Naturally, (no surprise) Darwin viewed his race as the "most" evolved and the Austrian aborigine at the bottom of the pile. Their "sub-human" status was used to justify some of the horrific treatment they received at the hands of the British.

_________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

Whatever Darwin himself might have believed, the theory itself has undergone a great deal of refinement in a century-and-a-half.

The only "criterion" set by the theory is reproductive fitness. Given the selection pressures that are posed by the contingencies of the evolutionary landscape, different species find different means of such fitness. Uniquely human characteristics do not render humans "superior" (i.e., of greater value) to other species. Each has its forte'. Cheetahs have speed, bats have sonar, we have reason.

And there is nothing whatsoever at the core of the theory that implies that any one human race must be superior or inferior to any other, much less are there such implications regarding the differences between individuals.

Further, many Darwinians today follow the lead of Philip Kitcher, who urged that all that natural selection has done for humans is to provide them with the capacities for creating culture and engaging in reflection, both theoretical and practical. All else is Menschenwerk. (See Kitcher, Vaulting Ambition. Also, a classic and essential study is Mary Midgeley, Beast and Man).

I will go further in stating that it is impossible to be an evolutionist and not be racist. Not only racist, but to believe in one's own superiority over all people. After all, under evolution, if you are not superior, then, by definition, you are inferior. You either have more tools for survival through natural selection or you don't. Genocide is just a natural extension and continuation of evolution. Evolution was also used by Hitler to justify his attempt at genocide.

Under evolution, no two beings, no two races can evolve at the same rate. According to evolution, I or you have to be more evolved; We can not be equal, that is entirely a Biblical concept.

I'm not sure why you say this. The theory does not imply that organisms are evolving towards some sort of goal, with some closer to it than others. As Stephen Gould argued forcefully, that familiar image of primate evolution as progress from knucklewalker to Wall Street exec is misleading. Different species exist and flourish because they find different niches in the evolutionary landscape. Monkeys cannot do high-level math, but mathematicians are not particularly adept at arboreal acrobatics. And there is nothing in the theory that implies that no two individuals can be equally equipped with the skills that are necessary for survival and reproduction.

What the theory does seem to predict, given a group selection account of the evolution of altruism, is "within-group niceness" and "between-group nastiness." That is, it is to be expected that one will have due regard for whoever is perceived to be a member of the same "tribe," but some degree of hostility towards "outsiders."

I have my own objections to the theory as taught. But before I begin my criticisms I want to make sure that it is the most plausible version of the theory that I am critiquing, and not some straw man that I've propped up.

(I agree that the notion of equality--or, behind that, dignity--derives from a theistic perspective and finds no quarter in a naturalistic worldview.

Are you trying to say that one evolutionary change is not superior over another just because there is no goal in mind? Some evolutionary changes are obviously superior to others. According to evolution, why does man retain eyes? When they evolved, they were superior to the man with no eyes, therefore, through natural selection, man with no eyes died off. The man with the eyes, though there is no final goal, was obviously superior to the man with no eyes. Two distinctly evolved races can not be equal, one evolution must be superior, must prevail, the other will eventually die off through natural selection. Though, from my understanding the darker genes are actually taking over. I would guess that from an evolutionary standpoint that would actually make the darker people superior. No, I'm not darker. I do understand that outside of the color of skin, there is actually very little variance in genes between races, two white people are actually likely to be more genetically different than two people of different races.

May I urge, as kindly as possible, that you are operating with a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory? I'm not trying to be combative here, but this falls within my primary area of research (Darwinian implications for human morality), and I've waded pretty deep into the literature. You're working with a straw man.

Ahhh yes.
Straw man - This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made.
Hmmmm. Please explain how my argument is in the slightest related to the straw man fallacy.
I will, however, accuse you of Argumentum ad hominem - an argument directed at the person, and, also, of Argumentum ad verecundiam - an argument or appeal to authority.

Sadly, it will happen a lot here. Like when you ask people to get back to the one question that the other side will not address and the response is to introduce a new subject into an existing thread.

________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

The thread wove its way from stem cell research to origins. But if you track back, the shift seems to have occurred when Dollar made a comment about Basmati's avatar (the dinosaur) and Paul Perkins replied with a post about carbon 14 dating. I don't think Basmati is to blame for this one.

Well, "accusation" isn't exactly the word that comes to my mind.

But, again, you are attributing to the theory iniquitous implications that it simply does not have. That is where the straw man makes his appearance.

I'm not sure why you suggest that I stand guilty of either ad hominem or simple appeal to authority. I've said nothing to impugn you or your intelligence. My subject is the theory of evolution and what it actually teaches. Nor am I simply appealing to authority (the "authority" of Darwin, or Dennett, or Dawkins, etc.). And I was not arguing when I noted my own familiarity with the best literature today. When I said "kindly" I meant it. Really, you do your side a disservice when you attack a theory that no responsible proponent would defend.

Look, if you are going to criticize a view, first you have to get it right. The principle of charity dictates that you seek the most plausible rendering of an opponent's position and then critique that.

"I'm not sure why you suggest that I stand guilty of either ad hominem or simple appeal to authority. I've said nothing to impugn you or your intelligence."

Well, to quote your first response: "this falls within my primary area of research -- and I've waded pretty deep into the literature.". The implication being that YOU are an authority and this also implied that I am not as educated on the issue, therefore ad hominem. You actually have no idea what I've read, I might very well be more read than you, though, of course, that would not make me any more right, to say that would make me guilty of the authority fallacy.

I know you meant no harm and neither do I, I'm simply pointing out the fallacies in your argument. I enjoy debate, it does not make me angry or dis-like the person I argue with. In fact, I only enjoy the company of those who can hold friendly debate.

Again, my observing that I am familiar with the literature was not a part of any argument. I am familiar with some rather cutting edge literature, and my point is simply that the implications that you attribute to the theory are not defended by any responsible advocate of the theory, though you may find cranks out there defending nearly anything.

I don't know what you have or have not read. And I do not intend to rest my case by concluding "I've read more widely than you." The point is simply that those people who are most adept at articulating and defending the theory do not even remotely resemble the portrait that you paint.

I got into "trouble" in a similar way some time ago. I read a paper at a conference in which I urged that Darwinism is committed to the sort of "sociobiological" view articulated by Michael Ruse and E.O. Wilson: "Morality is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes in order to get us to cooperate." I learned through interaction with some pretty bright people that the sociobiologists are viewed as extremists by mainstream Darwinians. As I mentioned in another post, Philip Kitcher is representative of this rejection of sociobiology. He says this in Vaulting Ambition:

"All that selection may have done for us is to equip us with the capacity for various social arrangements and the capacity to formulate ethical rules. Recognizing that not every trait we care to focus on need have been the target of natural selection, we shall no longer be tempted to argue that any respectable history of our ethical behavior must identify some selective advantage for those beings who first adopted a system of ethical precepts. It is entirely possible that evolution fashioned the basic cognitive capacities—alles ubriges ist Menschenwerk."

My own project is to advance an updated version of the sort of moral argument that C.S. Lewis defended. It is "updated" in that it takes the best versions of naturalistic morality into account but then goes on to argue that they founder on the Darwinian views that naturalists are all but required to accept.

Whether or not I hear any "mainstream" evolutionist support or argue against any position does not negate my ability to reason for myself. Natural selection demands that inferior evolutions will not survive. It is obvious. Even your own quote "all that selection may have done for us is to equip us with the capacity for various social arrangements and the capacity to formulate ethical rules" supports my argument. If that quote is true, then what happened to the humans before that were NOT equipped with the capacity for various social arrangements and the capacity to formulate ethical rules? Obviously, those people before were not as capable to survive.

Whether or not I hear any "mainstream" evolutionist support or argue against any position does not negate my ability to reason for myself.

I agree with you on a fundamental point: the issue is not what the proponent of a theory does, in fact, say. Rather, it is what he should say if consistent with his original premises.

But I think the Darwinian has plenty of conceptual resources for combating your particular argument. What you say reminds me of what I have heard some evolution opponents say: "If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys around? They would have become extinct because inferior."

But this "problem" vaniushes as soon as we grasp Gould's imagery of evolution as a "tree" with many branches--each a sort of evolutionary "experiment." There are so many contingencies that could readily account for the continued survival and flourishing of the original versions of the species.

Here's a homely example. I have a large pond behind my house that is full of frogs and not a few snakes. The snakes prey on the frogs.
If natural selection is at work here, then we might expect that, once in a while, a frogling will hatch that has slightly more powerful legs. Though it is possible that he'll simply be gobbled up, there is a tendency for the frogs with the stronger legs to escape the jaws of the snake. thus living to pass on their genes. Their offspring might then inherit the stronger legs and thus be somewhat more successful at survival.

Should we not expect that, at some later point, all of the weaker-legged frogs will have died off? Perhaps. But perhaps not. n What else might have been going on in the pond? Perhaps the hatchling of a weak-legged frog displays a random mutation such that it is slightly better hidden in the brush. Or perhaps some of the offspring of the weaker-legged frogs migrate to another pond where the snakes are either sluggish or non-existent. Or....? It is perfectly possible that the "new and improved" version of whatever species finds itself in an entirely different niche from the original, so that life continues as before for the original version.
There are so many possible versions of "just-so stories" that the Darwinian can tell, all of them admittedly speculative, but, for all of that possible and many rather plausible.

What is evolution? Basically, a series of mutations. A mutation is either beneficial or not. If it is beneficial, such as an eye or "the capacity to formulate ethical rules" (which would be some mutation in the brain, I suppose), then, through natural selection, the mutation gets passed to the young and supersedes those without the mutation. Now, how can we not consider one mutation, eyeballs, superior over another, a backwards foot. There are millions of provable examples of non-beneficial mutations, while practically no provable beneficial ones, which is one of the things making evolution difficult to 100% prove. Your "experts" might not consider any mutation scientifically, provably superior, but I will stick with my own logic that says an eyeball is. Now, similar to this extreme example of differences in mutations, I also believe that evolution would demand that, even on a small scale, one mutation be more beneficial than another. Hence, no two beings could be evolutionarily equal, even if the present "experts" find it politically incorrect to admit that.

I was at the library and heard this speaker who was well informed on the subject. Actually several of your blog friends/nemesis were there as well.

Perhaps the SA article forgot to ask Jackie Rabons what she thought about Adult Stem Cell cures? Jackie was paralyzed with a spinal cord injury, but it now learning to walk again due to her own stem cells being used to regenerate spinal cord nerves.

Hey, you don't have to take my word for it- take 90 seconds to listen and Jackie will tell you herself.

Of course we have the wonderful results from embryonic stem cells use such as this:

Researchers in China met with a disastrous result. Fetal tissue injected into a patient’s brain produced temporary improvement, but within two years the patient developed a brain tumor and died. An autopsy revealed that the fetal cells had taken root, but had then metamorphed into other types of human tissue – hair, skin and bone. These grew into the tumor, which killed the patient.

and this

A devastating result occurred at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, and was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

No more fetal transplants. We are absolutely and adamantly convinced that this should be considered for research only.”

But the statement with the most Truth of all comes from Jackie herself.

"With embryonic stem cells you are taking someone's life to help yourself. I don't think that's right."- Jackie Rabons

Also you may have gotten you link wrong. The SA article discusses a very recent experiment of converting somatic skin cells to esc in mice. Because this research is so recent, there are legit questions about whether this could be of value to humans.

Seems like you got (accidentally) off point??
_________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

I was at the library and heard this speaker who was well informed on the subject. Actually several of your blog friends/nemesis were there as well.

Not surprising. You guys seem to like to hunt in packs. A veritable choir of hyenas, you guys are!

I'm glad Ms. Rabons cured her spinal problem with adult stem cells. Also sorry for the loss of the embryonic stem cell recipients. Anecdotal evidence is so....vivid!

Sadly though, anecdotal evidence doesn't replace cold hard statistical analysis. From what I've read, the adult stem cell folks got quite a bit of 'splainin' to do as to why their "breakthrough miracles" are failing with such regularity in the field.

I surprised to hear that propagandist Josh Brahm is still singing the praises of the by-now thoroughly discredited "South Korean research". The "research" of "famous" South Korean adult stem cell scientist Hwang Woo Suk is on par with that of Catherine Verfaillie: they both fudged the data to fit their preconceived conclusions.

I gotta love Verfaillie's moxie though, she says we should accept her conclusions even though the data is squirrelly because she really really believes it to be true.

My conclusion: Adult stem cell "successes" are largely public relation stunts foisted upon a gullible public by Christianists with an interest in demonizing embryionic stem cell research.

______________________________________________
Sunlight causes cancer. I don't plan on living underground like some on here. -Bad PTC, responding to a typical "The Sky is Falling!" post from Denise Connor

The article in The Citizen did not mention Hwang Woo Suk and neither did Josh Brahm in his presentation. So back up your statement that he's "still singing the praises of the by-now thoroughly discredited" Hwang. Prove it.

Also, Hwang is NOT an "adult stem cell scientist." He made claims for EMBRYONIC stem cell research and cloning -- he's on your side of the moral fence.

"Hwang made further headlines in May 2005 when he criticized U.S. President George W. Bush's policy on embryonic stem cell research."

Time magazine named Hwang (adept at "public relation stunts") one of its "People Who Mattered 2004," and other "gullible" media suppressed a story about his unethical practices because so many were thrilled with human cloning.

Only you put him "on par" with Dr. Catherine Verfaillie. The Scientific American article that you quoted never accused her of fraud and unethical practices.

"There was no evidence that the mistakes were intentional."

The flaws do not "negate the central findings of the paper."

The director of the Stanford Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine in California "said he believes Verfaillie is innocent of any foul play." Verfaillie "has a long record of solid, reproducible work."

SA quotes another researcher: "Regarding the quality of the work, I have never had any doubt about her work which is completely sound."

AP story -- "The flaws were mistakes, not falsifications."

Dr. Diane Krause of Yale University "believes Verfaillie’s research will hold up, despite being hard to repeat." “When it comes to Catherine, she’s impeccable. She’s one of the most careful scientists I know.”

This story also comments on how much science is becoming politicized.

_______________________________

No, I'm not surprised at all how a "propagandist" like you "demonizes" ADULT stem cell research. We're not "gullible" enough to believe your "squirrelly" mischaracterizations.

Not surprising. You guys seem to like to hunt in packs. A veritable choir of hyenas, you guys are!

Wow banmati! You have us figured out. How did you know that Git Real, enigma, Denise, mixer, Paul, and I have a monthly meeting where we all talk about making Christianity the state religion, making getting an abortion a capital crime, and executing atheists all while sipping coffee out of our "Rush Limbaugh -- I'm a charter member of the vast Right Wing conspiracy!" mugs? Who'd thunk it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Tell Senior El Presidente no to amnesty!

We've exchanged thoughts on this point before.

Consider the following principle, call it "S":

(S) If procedure P is scientifically possible and would have significant beneficial consequences, then P should be performed.

I take it that (S) is clearly false. Suppose it were determined that bone marrow fatally extracted from healthy, living toddlers was an essential ingredient in a veritable elixer of life that could cure a wide variety of diseases. (S) would justify the procedure.

One would nevertheless have splendid moral reasons for opposing it. One might recognize the desirablity of the proposed benefits and urge a second-best procedure that did not involve the killing of children (perhaps snake oil does the trick, though not quite as well). There is nothing anti-scientific in either the opposition or the urged alternative.

The debate must be about the morality of using--perhaps even creating--human embryos for such research. To bypass that debate is to assume something akin to (S), a principle that would justify nearly anything.

Hey Basnazi Gollum! So if a Pro-Lifer is an "Anti-Abortion Zealot" does that make a Pro-Abortionist an "Anti-Life Zealot"?

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Git, buddy, you must have missed the Newspeak training session -- it's "pro-choice" because choice is good!

I find it so ironic that the liberal and pro-abortion people always have to resort to euphemisms like "pro-choice," "blob of tissue," "reproductive health rights," "redeployment," etc. Kinda like Hitler's "Final Solution" (aka kill all Jews and other "undesirables").

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Tell Senior El Presidente no to amnesty!

Do you mean this Gollum or this Gollum?

Gollum: I'm not listening... I'm not listening... I hate you, I hate you. We be nice to them, if they be nice to us. We ought to wring her filthy little neck. Kill her! Kill her! Filthy little scum ....

Basmati arguing with his conscience: "I HATES christianists . . . I HATES them!"

Don't go getting all fair and balanced on the guy! Geez!

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video