CADRE Comments

Charles Krauthammer, who is paraplegic and therefore a potential recipient of the promised miracle cures of embryonic stem cell research, has hailed the amniotic stem cell breakthrough recently discussed by BK and me. Although Krauthammer does not believe life begins at conception and supports abortion rights, he nevertheless believes that the amniotic stem cell discovery allows us a morally untroubled way forward that should be pursued: This is a revolutionary finding. Amniotic fluid surrounds the baby in the womb during pregnancy. It is routinely drawn out by needle in amniocentesis. The procedure carries little risk and is done for legitimate medical purposes that have nothing to do with stem cells. If it nonetheless yields a harvest of stem cells, we have just stumbled upon an endless supply. And not just endless, but uncontroversial. No embryos are destroyed. The cells are just floating there, as if waiting for science to discover them. Even better, amniotic fluid might prove to...

I enjoy listening to Glen Beck, and a couple of days ago he made a powerful point by being absurd. As Layman reported here, new research shows that stem cells can be found in amniotic stem cell fluid that, on the basis of this early research, appear to have all of the same qualities as embryonic stem cells (in fact, since embryonic stem cell research has often resulted in negative consequences, it may be that the amniotic stem cells are superior to the embryonic stem cells on that basis alone) without the morally troubling aspect that a human embryo must be destroyed to obtain them. Glen asked the "evil conservatives" if they planned on barring any funding of amniotic stem cell research because their real motivation was to see people suffering from diseases continue to suffer. Of course, no one who called into the program in response had any objection to the stem cell research using amniotic stem cells (which is consistent with their lack of objection to using adult stem cell...

In my recent post about Ethiopia's incursion into Somalia to displace the until-then victorious Islamic extremists, I noted that Ethiopia was quietly backed and covertly supported by the United States. Although this is not an overtly religious war, it does pit a predominantly Christian army (backed by a predominantly Christian United States) against an overwhelmingly Muslim one. It is possible that such conflicts may escalate in Africa, although this analyst thinks that decisive intervention against extremists may prevent an escalation in the long-term. His point is interesting because there are moderate Muslims in Kenya and the Somalia Transitional Government are working with Christian troops from Ethiopia and cooperating with the predominantly Christian U.S. The common enemy is extremism. I also stated that I had not seen any evidence of direct U.S. involvement in the conflict. All that changed this week as a U.S. AC-130 gunship attacked sites in Somalia, where al Qaeda le...

I recently watched the second lecture from the Beyond Belief Conference in La Jolla, California. On the positive side, I will say that the speaker, Neil deGrasse Tyson, was much more entertaining than expected. He put together an interesting lecture and was (with a couple of important exceptions) in command of the material which he was discussing. However, for the reasons discussed herein, the entire lecture fall flat for me. Optimistic Naturalism First, Dr. Tyson appears to be an optimistic naturalist, i.e., he believes that given sufficient time and grant money science will be able to find answers for every known mystery of the universe. In other words, it’s merely a matter of time before science discovers the answer to every difficulty because there’s nothing that exists that cannot ultimately be solved using scientific investigation. Now, I’m also an optimist when it comes to science. I do believe that many of the puzzles that have plagued scientists will ultimately be solved. For ...

Probably the best "solution" to the embryonic stem cell debate is scientific advancement in related fields. Just such an advancement may be occurring. In the latest issue of Nature Biotechnology , a study by researchers at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C., was released which showed that amniotic fluid is a source of stem cells that may be of even better medical use than embryonic stem cells. The amniotic stem cells grew quickly, doubling in 36 hours, and "were able to ... differentiate into fat, bone, muscle, blood, nerve and liver cells." Although research is ongoing, it appears the harvesting of amniotic fluid -- causing no harm to embryo, baby, or mother -- could yield more than enough stem cells for possible treatments derived therefrom. If the research holds out, there would be no need to kill embryos to harvest their cells. In addition to resolving the moral problem, amniotic stem cells appear to bestow an added medical ben...

It seems that The Da Vinci Code , among other sensationalistic books, has elicited a response from the scholarly community. From many specific Da Vinci Code responses to Ben Witherington's Beyond Strange Theories and Darrel Bock's The Missing Gospels , bona fide scholars have turned their attention to the sensational in greater numbers than usual. With so many options available, how do you pick the right one? Much of that depends on your particular interest. If you are looking for responses to The Da Vinci Code , check out the book descriptions at the Cadre's Da Vinci Code Page . If you are looking for information about how we got the New Testament and whether it was reliably transmitted through history, Reinventing Jesus -- reviewed here -- is your best bet. If your interest runs towards the more sensationalistic claims made by scholars with admittedly impressive credentials, then Fabricating Jesus , by Craig Evans, is the book for you. Craig Evans is a very we...

Just for the record, the title of this post is quoted directly from the subtitle of an article in today's Wall Street Journal by Sam Schulman entitled Without God, Gall is Permitted , subtitled "Modern atheists have no new arguments, and they lack their forebears' charm." He writes: For the new atheists, believing in God is a form of stupidity, which sets off their own intelligence. They write as if they were the first to discover that biblical miracles are improbable, that Parson Weems was a fabulist, that religion is full of superstition. They write as if great minds had never before wrestled with the big questions of creation, moral law and the contending versions of revealed truth. They argue as if these questions are easily answered by their own blunt materialism. Most of all, they assume that no intelligent, reflective person could ever defend religion rather than dismiss it. The reviewer of Dr. Dawkins's volume in a recent New York Review of Books noted his...

In a recent post about last year's Beyond Belief Conference in La Jolla, California, which I entitled "Beyond Belief Conference" was Really Beyond Belief (which I should more accurately have named "Beyond Belief Conference was Really All About Belief") I opined that based on the descriptions from Beyond Belief's own website and the responses I found to the conference in New Scientist magazine the conference was little more than a gathering of atheists in white lab coats. A reader (thank you) challenged my characterization of the conference saying that he had watched some of the videos offered through the Beyond Belief site and found them interesting. He said "the speakers all impress with their ability to give, take, rebut, and withstand criticism from a highly-trained audience." That's all fine and good. Certainly, while I was of the opinion that the lectures were not worth the time, I am not telling anyone that they can't watch them. And...

This morning, I was listening to the Laura Ingraham Show on KRLA radio when she mentioned that Brian Sapient of the Rational Responders would be appearing on her show at 9:30 in the morning. My first thought was, Why is she giving an platform for these people? After all, they are simply a group of Internet atheists who think that they are smarter than everyone else, but they haven’t backed up their claims in any material way. They seem to be more of a group who uses rhetorical trickery more than actual logic to make their case. (See, for example, my earlier posts The circular reasoning behind claims that the apostles were biased , The great high church of my own intellect and Layman’s very entertaining post Foolishness from the "Rational Responders" in their Jesus Challenge .) Thus, I was interested in what Mr. Sapient would have to say. Not unpredictably, Mr. Sapient said nothing new. It was the same old garbage that people of his ilk normally throw out. For example, h...

UFOlogists, like people who study Bigfoot, don’t receive much respect from serious scientists. Certainly, some UFOlogists have devoted their lives to studying reports and photos and other evidence that suggest that aliens have visited and continue to visit the planet. They can provide details about famous UFO incidents, such as the Roswell, New Mexico, UFO crash and the abduction of Barney and Betty Hill, as well as lesser known UFO encounters. Yet, UFOlogists are denigrated because they have all this information about UFOs -- something that scientists largely deny exists. Theology finds itself in much the same situation. Theology is the study of God. In most of Western culture, that means the study of the God of Judaism and Christianity. In the past, theology was considered one of the greatest of the areas of study. Many people have devoted their lives to the study of God and some of the greatest and most influential thinkers in western history such as Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aq...