Posted on 11/29/2007 1:21:14 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
Just before Thanksgiving, researchers in Wisconsin and Japan announced a breakthrough in stem-cell research. This time, it was good news for those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life.
The researchers announced that they had “successfully reprogrammed human skin cells into cells indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells.”
The announcement at the University of Wisconsin was accompanied by the usual hype: The research “has tremendous implications” for medicine, drugs, and “transplantation therapies.”
The unusual part was that the leader of the research team, James Thomson, told reporters that these cells would, over time, replace embryonic stem cells in research—and he is glad of it, because he had moral qualms.
Not surprisingly, it was the possible resolution to this controversy that captured the headlines. The Philadelphia Inquirer spoke for many when it said that the findings have the potential to end the “dreary wrangle” over embryonic stem-cell research.
The news from Wisconsin and Japan is good news, and it is a vindication of those who argued that the sacrifice of human embryos was unnecessary. But this struggle is far from over.
To understand why, you need to understand what motivated many supporters of embryonic stem-cell research.
The first was political. As one liberal pundit put it, “embryonic stem cells, of course, were supposed to cure America of its affection for the religious right.” For many politicians, embryonic stem-cell research was a “wedge issue.” Its goal was not to conquer disease but, instead, to put pro-life Americans on the defensive, depicting them as uncaring fanatics. There is no reason to think that our opponents are going to stop trying to use the stem-cell issue against us even after this announcement.
The second motivation is worldview: specifically, “scientism,” the belief that scientific investigation is the only means of knowledge—that scientists can get answers to everything, including philosophy and morality.
So embryonic stem-cell research, scientism insists, must be free from any “restraints” or “interference.” Scientists—not political leaders and certainly not morally concerned citizens—should determine what it is or is not permissible in the lab.
In addition, scientism, given its materialistic grounding, rejects any appeal to the sanctity of human life. The Christian worldview teaches that humans are made in the image of God. From conception to natural death, life is sacred. The worldview of scientism teaches something entirely different. In that view, we humans are merely an interesting and potentially useful collection of cells and genetic material.
Nothing that has happened in the past couple of weeks has reduced the influence of scientism. On the contrary, “Science” is being credited with finding a resolution to the issue—and they will be back.
The only reason this breakthrough happened is that Christians stood firm for the sanctity of human life. And remember that we have had a president on our side. I remember when I congratulated President Bush for his courage in vetoing an embryonic stem-cell research bill. His answer to me was, “I didn’t have any choice: It was a moral issue.” I was never prouder of the president. But we may not have pro-life leaders in office in the future. So we dare not let our guard down.
There are links to further information at the source document.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Taking the moral high-ground has led to this advancement.
I agree with the author about Democrats seeing it as a political weapon, but he lost me at the “scientism” part.
Agreed.
Why? Do you think science should even wander into the way we define some issues of morality?
You are 100% correct.
The debate has been framed for some time now as "the people who embrace science and want to cure disease vs. the people who will let you die of Parkinson's for their nasty god."
Science needs restraint....Having the ability to do something is not the same thing as having the wisdom to know if you should.
The role of science is about the ability, but it should be neutral (thus silent) on whether or not something is wise. When it loses its neutrality, it is no longer science.
The reality is far worse. There are people so selfish that they would prolong their own lives at the cost of anything, even a defenseless unborn child.
So do I, up to a point. But he really spent too many words on it.
The real issue is simply this: there is a difference between "can" and "should." So how do we tell the difference between them?
Scientific research is ideally suited to investigating the limits of "can," but it doesn't do well at all where "should" is concerned.
Colson's worst mistake is that he perpetuates the underlying problem by building an "-ism" strawman, the result of which will be just another endless spiral of argument about issues and definitions that are beside the point.
In that sense, his commentary was uncomfortably reminiscent of the problem sketched out by Thomas Moreland, in this thread. It's fine to say that science isn't the only source of knowledge, but Moreland pointed out that many evangelicals go to the other extreme of rejecting the authority of knowledge gained through anything other than Scripture. Not that Colson himself is doing so -- but placing the blame on an ill-defined "-ism" is a hallmark of those of whome Moreland spoke.
Moreland's point is relevant to those of us who want to have a meaningful say about "should."
This over-committment [to Scripture as the only authority or source of knowledge] stems from a withdrawal from the broader world of ideas, surrendering the source of “real knowledge” to the hard sciences. Moreland’s call was for evangelicals to recover the use of right reason, natural law, experience, Creeds , and tradition as subordinate sources of knowledge.
The problem is that "-ism" at the end. It's a convenient descriptor if you're content to allow it to remain vague, but it's pure poison once you try to debate the merits of "scientism."
It all comes down to justifying abortion one way or the other. All roads lead to abortion in America.
Have you noticed? All the documented success with treating disease with adult stem cells is ignored. Why? Again, it doesn’t justify abortion. The West could wipe out several diseases in sub-sahara Africa with simple vaccines. No, we spend billions on eradicating AIDS because the free-sex/homosexual agenda and abortion can be packaged. It’s really quite sick.
Why? Do you think science should even wander into the way we define some issues of morality?No, I just didn't understand what the guy was talking about.
Science is simply men doing research.. They are inseparable.
Painting science as neutral makes the ‘scientific” medical research of both the Nazi’s and the Japanese excusable..
There is no science without men....Men are the crux of the issue..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.