What do you say to someone who prefers that real children die so that stem cells can live? Notes on Proposed Missouri Amendment 2

An evangelical acquaintance recently wrote me a letter arguing that the pro-stem cell research proposal (Missouri Amendment 2) A) is geared to financially enrich its sponsors, B) that it will invite reproductive cloning and C) that poor women will result in poor women selling their eggs.  She urged me to oppose the Amendment and oppose various promising forms of stem cell research. 

For information on the proposed amendment, see here. 

Even before receiving this letter, I knew that my acquaintance believed that a one-minute old fertilized human egg in a Petri dish is a baby that deserved full legal protection and priority over the children with horrible illnesses who occupy hospital beds. My acquaintance indicated that she was part of an organized effort to defeat Missouri Amendment 2. 

I am not thrilled with my response (see below), but I couldn’t think of anything better.  If anyone has any ideas as to a more effective way to deal with those who oppose stem cell research on religious grounds, I’m all ears.

—

Dear [Acquaintance]

I realize that you feel hurt and attacked by my previous email.  In this e-mail, I will attempt to put our recent exchange of e-mail in perspective.

The technology for making insulin is currently based on recombinant DNA techniques; the human gene which codes for the insulin protein is cloned and then inserted in bacteria.  I want you to assume for a moment, though, that my religion holds that both the cloning of genes and recombinant DNA …

Share

Continue ReadingWhat do you say to someone who prefers that real children die so that stem cells can live? Notes on Proposed Missouri Amendment 2

It’s not all in the genes. Ask any epigeneticist. Ramifications for cloning.

Check out these identical twins:

                    men identicle twins.jpg

They are really identical twins.  This photo is from the November 2006 issue of Discover Magazine.  See the related article: “DNA Is Not Destiny The new science of epigenetics rewrites the rules of disease, heredity, and identity.”

Though these two men are genetically identical, they were separated at birth.  The man on the left was malnourished for years.   Bone structure changes brought about by environmental factors is thus one of many ways (physical and behavioral) in which the environment can dramatically affect the way in which the genes express themselves

As the Discover article points out, the 25,000 genes of our human DNA are widely considered to be an instruction book for our bodies.  However, “genes themselves need instructions for what to do, and where and when to do it.”  These additional instructions are not in DNA, but

on it, in an array of chemical markers and switches, known collectively as the epigenome, that lie along the length of the double helix.  These epigenetic switches and markers in turn help switch on or off the expression of particular genes.

It has long been known that epigenetic switches are critical to the healthy development of organisms.  These can be dramatically tweaked by exposure to a vitamin, a toxin or even mothering, altering “the software of our genes in ways that affect an individual’s body and brain for life.”  Green tea, for example, has been shown to prevent the growth of cancers. 

New research has even …

Share

Continue ReadingIt’s not all in the genes. Ask any epigeneticist. Ramifications for cloning.

Language wars: it all begins with subtle early skirmishes

Recently on Huffpo,George Lakoff has written an important piece on the ongoing political battle to define words.

I’m keenly aware of this battle.  Here’s one way it affects me.  I do not believe in a sentient Creator.  Some would label me an atheist, but that would be horrible unfair.  Why?  Because that term has been successfully loaded with far more than lack of a belief in a traditional God.  The conservative movement has successfully defined “atheists” as strident, immoral, untrustworthy and threatening to America’s families. 

This ugly baggage is why I have embraced the term Bright. I am a “bright.”  I have a naturalistic worldview free of supernatural and mystical elements.  Does that make me threatening?  I don’t think so.  Does it make me prone to mob violence like members of many religious groups?  I would think the opposite—I have to cut my own philosophic path thorough life.  I doubtless have different politics and beliefs than many other Brights.  Narrowly construed, I’m an organization of one.  But there are certain people are perturbed with me, I’m sure, because I refuse to claim allegiance to the insecure God of the Bible and we just can’t have that.

The word battles, however, are taking place on many other fronts.

As Lakoff writes, such word battles comprise “the struggle to define our democratic principles and values. The right wing has worked for decades to alter the meanings of concepts that define our way of life.”  For instance, consider the word “liberal.” …

Share

Continue ReadingLanguage wars: it all begins with subtle early skirmishes

See no evil: comments on the comments to the Bart Ehrman post

My earlier post regarding Bart Ehrman was not meant to provoke in an outrageous way, although I suspected that it might distress some people.  That post drew much more traffic than we are used to at the site, approximately 25,000 unique visitors in three days.  It also pulled in more than 200 comments.  I was intrigued by the nature of the comments, especially those comments written by people who ostensibly disapproved of Ehrman’s work or his conclusions.  In fact, I did a small informal analysis based upon the comments posted by last night (I believe there were about 150 comments posted at that time).

I need to state at the outset that there were more than a few Believers among the commenters who appreciated and even applauded Ehrman’s work.  Some of these Believers specifically stated that even if Ehrman was correct, they could still believe in God and Jesus, they could still be good Christians and they found that Ehrman’s work had enriched their understanding of the Bible. My criticism of the distressed commenters is not directed toward these people.

Approximately 35 of the comments were written by people who appeared to be distressed or dismayed by Ehrman’s work.  Notably, only three of those commenters acknowledged the basic points made by Ehrman. 

What were Ehrman’s basic points?  That earlier manuscripts did not contain some information that was contained in some of the later manuscripts that were ultimately adopted part of “the Bible.” Therefore, the new material found in later writings …

Share

Continue ReadingSee no evil: comments on the comments to the Bart Ehrman post

Actors, athletes, tell us not to try to save lives using stem cell research

Here is a video of the latest bit of fundie propoganda, airing in Missouri, where voters will soon have the opportunity to vote "yes" to allow the full range of stem cell research.  These anti-stem-cell actors and athletes should be made to walk through hospitals and hospices.  They should be made to…

Continue ReadingActors, athletes, tell us not to try to save lives using stem cell research