In modern politics no line is probably more laughable and more revealing than the line spoken by former President Bill Clinton during his grand jury testimony in addressing the question of whether he had sexual relations with Paula Jones. That infamous and oft quoted line is, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." The line is revealing because it demonstrated the moral failures of a man who was willingly attempting to avoid honestly answering a question he understood. The line is laughable because it assumes the very thing it asks: by using the word, "is" directly after saying that it depends upon what "is" means, Clinton reveals he knows what "is" means. Unfortunately, what may be laughable and of limited political importance and duration can be serious and infinitely destructive in theology.
Let's take a look at a couple of examples and let me see if I can't shed a little light on what I mean. Starting with Romans 5:12 Paul lays out an argument for the power of Christ's death as a deliverance from sin. However, Paul's argument only works if there was a literal man, Adam, and if his sin inaugurated all other sin. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 15:21 and on, Paul ties the actual historicity of Adam directly to the Gospel. What Paul makes clear is that if there were no literal man, Adam, and there were no literal single event of sin entering the world, then the death of Christ is meaningless for us as Christians.
Why is the death of Christ meaningless without the existence of Adam? Because Adam is our progenitor. Not only physically is Adam the first man, he is also the first representative of man before God. Adam was a type of Christ, so that if there is no literal Adam, then there is no type to which Christ refers. What that means is that if Adam is only a literary construct, then we have no corporate representative in him bringing sin upon all men. But, if we have no corporate representative in Adam, why should we assume we have a corporate representative in Christ?
The fact that Christ serves as a propitiation for the sins of all men is tied up in the fact that Adam serves as a corporate representative before God, a perfect man who sinned and thus introduced a sinful nature to his own. We see this in 1 Corinthians 15:22 when we read, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." If there is no man, Adam, in whom we have all died, then what hope have we that we shall be made alive in Christ? Because Adam serves as our corporate representative, and because we have all partaken of a sin nature through Adam and Eve, so also we are able to partake of a spiritual nature because of the life of Christ, who is the spiritual representative before God for those of us who have faith in him.
But, some modern scholars would do away with a literal Adam. Some scholars argue that Adam is a literary figure, Genesis is not to be taken literally up through chapter 11, everything preceding Abraham is allegorical, or a literary story written to illustrated God's power as the one who organizes and brings order to the world. This is not a new argument, necessarily. For instance Origin and Augustine both argued for an allegorical reading of Genesis 1. Both of these church fathers argued that Genesis 1 could not be read as literal history because the idea of creation in seven days, or the idea of the days as literal periods of time, made no sense to them for different reasons.
My argument is not with those who would argue that Genesis 1 is allegorical, or that Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be a story discussing how God ordered the earth and made man for the purpose of fellowship with him. However, those who hold that all of Genesis 1-10 cannot be history, those who reject the literal existence of Adam and Eve, those who deny that there was a unique creation of man that resulted in one couple who sinned in that Garden of Eden and who were cast out by God, those individuals do massive theological harm to the gospel of Christ. Those who deny the historicity of Adam and the way sin entered the world through a man are forced to do away with passages like Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 2:13, and Jude 14. All of these passages refer to a literal Adam, and all of them tie the existence of Adam directly the gospel.
It is here that theologians begin to undertake gymnastics to avoid dealing with the text as it exists. Scholars argue that we can do away with Adam because it does not have any significant impact on the gospel. After all, why do we need to have Adam in order for sin to have entered into men and have become part of our nature? Why do we need to have Adam to recognize the power of the blood of Christ to forgive us our sins? Adam is only a matter of secondary importance, and doing away with Adam does not effect the death of Christ on our behalf, or the efficacy of his blood for our redemption.
But, doing away with Adam does away with Paul. For instance, Paul says that all of Scripture is inspired by God, specifically he says it is breathed out by God. (2 Timothy 3:16) If Paul is wrong about there being a literal Adam then either God did not inspire him, or God got something wrong, or God allowed error on his part in what he inspired. In any of those conditions we are now left with Scripture that is potentially full of errors, Scripture that we must analyze carefully, dissect and correct, so that we are able to determine what is true and what is false. If that is the case then nothing in Scripture is safe from this examination, all of Scripture must be parsed and examined lest there be any historical error in it at all. And, even if we are able to determine some parts are accurate, what do we do with those sections we cannot empirically test?
For instance, if Paul is wrong about there being an Adam, and if Paul is wrong about the importance of Adam to the gospel, then what else is Paul wrong about? Obviously Paul's understanding of the gospel will no longer suffice, because his understanding relied upon an historical Adam. So what understanding will we replace Paul with? Who will become our teacher when we cannot trust Scripture to be accurate in what it teaches?
There are those who, for whatever reason, refuse to embrace the full criticism of Scripture that comes with removing Adam from the Bible. But, why should any truly rational person who accepts that Adam did not exist stop only there? Why shouldn't we question Paul? Why shouldn't we question Chronicles, reject Hosea as a prophet, (he references Adam as a literal man) do away with Luke, and then even question the necessity of the death of Christ himself?
When we engage in biblical criticism that questions the very integrity of Scripture, it is both revealing and laughable to the watching world. It is revealing to those who look on because they can see that we do not really trust our own holy book. We think that our holy book, that which claims to be inspired by God, is need of correction, because it is incompatible with a modern world. Our criticism is laughable because we still want to find some value in a set of stories written thousands of years ago, even though we don't think they are historically true or philosophically sound. While attempting to defend our bible we make it into a joke, because we are not willing to make the full commitment to treating it either as a sacred text, or a near eastern fable.
We do not need to reject science or reason to be Christians. Human genetics, modern technology, stem cells, antibiotics, gene therapy, microchips, and so much more has been discovered over the years, and none of these things contradict or contravene Scripture. But, when we say that there cannot be an Adam because evolutionary theory does not allow it, or when we say that Genesis cannot give a factual account of the creation of the world because geology contradicts it, then we are not simply accepting science, we are worshiping science and reason. I'm not saying that only those who accept a young earth are Christians, not at all; but those who reject the early chapters of Genesis or who mock Scripture based on what current scientific theory says, those people are a danger to the faith. They are a danger to the faith because they have placed Scripture under another authority, they have set themselves up as judges over the word of God, and they have found it wanting; and what then is there to act as a corrective if their wisdom leads them to reject the claims of the gospel entirely? When we accept those people who exalt science or human deliberation above the word of God, and place them in positions of authority, then we ought not be surprised when they dispute every doctrine and ridicule every portion of what we once though was sacred.
I know that what I have said will offend some. My intent is not to offend, but to point out the logical inconsistency we engage in when we attempt to ignore the plain meaning of Scripture because we think modern history and science trump with Word of God. Let us be consistent. Elijah said, "If Yahweh is God, then follow him, but if Baal is God then follow him." Let us heed those words today: If Yahweh is God, then follow him, but if human science and reason is greater than the God of the bible, then follow it.
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Monday, September 6, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
Something from Nothing
A fair warning advisory: This post contains both scientific descriptions and philosophical argumentation. I don't mean just a little, but a pretty good bit. I've tried to be as reader friendly as possible, but I take no responsibility for dizziness, headaches, or cranial combustion if you proceed further.
I'm not an economist. I'm also not a chemist, a biologist, a physicist or any other professional scientist. However, I do understand basic laws and logic. For instance a popular saying among economists is, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." This saying also applies to every other branch of science also, including physics.
Okay, I'm sure that some people are lost, or bored, already, so let me try and explain myself. In physics you have some basic principles, laws, which govern what is and is not possible. For instance, you have the laws of thermodynamics. There are, basically, four laws of thermodynamics, going from the zeroth law to the third law. Those theories or arguments which violate these laws are necessarily false.
For instance, the zeroth law states basically that if system A is equal to system B, and system B is equal to system C, then system A is equal to system C. Just a basic application of logic to real world events. A quick example might be if I am as tall as Jon, and Jon is as tall as Jen, then I am as tall as Jen. This rule works in all places and at all times, because it is a logically necessary truth.
The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only alter forms. Here is where things begin to get a little chintzy, if you will. For instance, I have heard it argued (I haven't done any reading on the subject in years) that at a subatomic level (that means that we are measuring things smaller than atoms, usually smaller even than just protons and neutrons, little bitty tiny things that are beyond human imagining in their small size) this does not hold perpetually true. Okay, time to clarify what I mean: at a subatomic level, in theory, quarks and anti-quarks can spontaneously occur, thus something pops into existence for a very short time (once the two collide their respective state cancels the other, thus reducing them back to nothing) and then it is gone again. However, on the whole the law stands, because the something that comes into existence cannot stay in existence for any length of time, it must necessarily meet with its anti-partner and cease to be.
The second law works in much the same way. The second law states that entropy increases, or that energy flows from a state of higher concentration to a state of lower concentration. Again though, this law only holds true when we think of it in absolute terms. Because all things (things here being physical objects) have some form of particle existence, it is possible that for a short period there might actually be a decrease in entropy, or a gain in energy, for a system. Think of it this way: the second law is really a law of averages. Because air molecules bounce around they tend to disperse, bouncing off of one another and moving through "empty" space until they bounce off of something else. However, it is theoretically possible that if we waited long enough, all of the molecules could, from bouncing off of one another and the walls in the room, all move in the same direction at the same time and thus instead of spreading out group up in one section of the room. But, that situation wouldn't last long, the molecules would immediately start to spread back out again, thus proving the second law true, the energy of the molecules would move from a state of higher concentration to a state of lower concentration.
The third law helps us make sense of all this stuff. Basically the third law says that as the energy in a system spreads out it reaches a constant minimum. Really the law says that as the heat in a system reaches absolute zero, the entropy in the system reaches a constant minimum. In effect this means that absolute zero cannot be reached (as it would require an absolute cessation of all energy) and at the same time means that there is some optimal minimum that all the energy in the universe will necessarily continue toward, until all usable energy is gone.
Okay, that's a lot of science, and I know that it was probably a bit confusing, but I promise we're getting to a pay off. The pay off is this: if we start with absolutely nothing in the universe, then it is necessarily true that we would always have absolutely nothing in the universe. We know this because the laws of thermodynamics make it impossible, now that the universe exists, that it could come into existence currently. Moreover, if these laws are logical laws, that is they themselves are not governed by the existence of the universe, but govern the existence of the universe, then regardless of whether or not the universe exists, the laws still hold true.
On the other hand, if the laws of thermodynamics are in fact governed by the existence of the universe, then there is some higher law which governs them, or there is a necessary mutual dependence of the universe upon the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of thermodynamics upon the universe. If the second is true (trust me, by logical progression we eventually get there anyway, either with the laws of thermodynamics or whatever is behind them) then we are completely incapable of saying how the universe began anyway, because there is no law to which we can appeal to create the universe outside of the universe itself. Basically, if the only laws which exist in the universe are tied to the universe, then without the universe existing there is nothing to cause the universe to come into existence. Without time there is nothing to start time, because the moment prior to time beginning is not really an infinitely long nothing, it is just absolutely nothing, it is non-time. In non-time there cannot suddenly be the event of time, there can only be non-time.
What we are left with is the necessity of that law, whatever it was, that created the universe being independent of the universe. That is, something outside of space-time and all normal realms of causality just made the universe, all that there is, come into being suddenly and without any prior necessity. Logically and scientifically, this is impossible. The existence of the universe is itself a miracle without explanation. It is this inexplicable event that gives us a first reason for giving God the glory, for he alone is the one could create the entire universe from nothing.
Okay, now I know some people are thinking I just waived a mystical wand and got the conclusion I wanted, so I'm going to try and restate the argument above in brief, just for the sake of clarity. If the law that dictated the creation of the universe is interdependent with the universe for its existence, then it cannot explain the creation of the universe, because it could not have existed prior the universe itself. But, if the law that dictated the creation of the universe exists independent of the universe, then it would have been a one-time event law, dictating the creation of the universe and then dictating a universe wherein the laws of thermodynamics would prevent it from ever occurring again. Because the law is necessarily prevented from recurring by the laws of thermodynamics, there is simply no way to prove the law exists, because the events leading the creation of the universe cannot be tested or repeated in a lab. To argue that there is a scientific law that required the universe to come into existence is to state a philosophical position, not a scientifically provable position. To argue that God created the universe is just as much a philosophical argument, but at least seems more plausible to my mind than the alternative.
Why is the idea of God creating the universe more plausible to my mind? God is not bound by space-time, he is not necessarily constrained by the laws of creation, which he created. God is the only explanation that is sufficiently large, and sufficiently reasonable to explain why we have such an exquisitely ordered universe, and how that universe could come into existence from nothing. Can I understand how God could exist and make decisions in non-time? Can I comprehend how God could exist as a trinity, as a spirit, when literally nothing but him existed? Of course I can't explain or comprehend these things, but I know that without them being true I would be left with an illogical universe and the unexplainable mystery of existence. Instead of worrying about what I cannot explain though, I can instead give praise and glory to God, because he is just that wonderful, just that great, and he brings order to what would otherwise be pure insanity.
I bring all this up because Dr. Stephen Hawking has concluded that God is not necessary for the universe. He says, in the article linked above, "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second." Dr. Hawking appeals to some unknown law of science and says that it is scientific law that makes it necessary that we exist. There is no reason to assume this is true, there is simply no law we can point to that says we must exist, the whole argument is a matter of philosophy, and, in reality, it is a matter of theology. Dr. Hawking has turned science into a god, he has declared that the personal God of Scripture is not necessary, and is not real. This is theology, it is the heart of man worshiping an idol so that he does not have to worship the only true and living God. This is the fulfillment of Romans 1:20-23.
Let us not become darkened. Let us not be fools before God. If the world would call us fools, if the greatest scientific minds of our generation would say our God is unnecessary and unreal, let us rejoice in that. For what they worship cannot save them; but our God, the glorious Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, he is able to save. In the end, all else will prove futile, but those who love God will be vindicated and be with him forever.
I'm not an economist. I'm also not a chemist, a biologist, a physicist or any other professional scientist. However, I do understand basic laws and logic. For instance a popular saying among economists is, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." This saying also applies to every other branch of science also, including physics.
Okay, I'm sure that some people are lost, or bored, already, so let me try and explain myself. In physics you have some basic principles, laws, which govern what is and is not possible. For instance, you have the laws of thermodynamics. There are, basically, four laws of thermodynamics, going from the zeroth law to the third law. Those theories or arguments which violate these laws are necessarily false.
For instance, the zeroth law states basically that if system A is equal to system B, and system B is equal to system C, then system A is equal to system C. Just a basic application of logic to real world events. A quick example might be if I am as tall as Jon, and Jon is as tall as Jen, then I am as tall as Jen. This rule works in all places and at all times, because it is a logically necessary truth.
The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only alter forms. Here is where things begin to get a little chintzy, if you will. For instance, I have heard it argued (I haven't done any reading on the subject in years) that at a subatomic level (that means that we are measuring things smaller than atoms, usually smaller even than just protons and neutrons, little bitty tiny things that are beyond human imagining in their small size) this does not hold perpetually true. Okay, time to clarify what I mean: at a subatomic level, in theory, quarks and anti-quarks can spontaneously occur, thus something pops into existence for a very short time (once the two collide their respective state cancels the other, thus reducing them back to nothing) and then it is gone again. However, on the whole the law stands, because the something that comes into existence cannot stay in existence for any length of time, it must necessarily meet with its anti-partner and cease to be.
The second law works in much the same way. The second law states that entropy increases, or that energy flows from a state of higher concentration to a state of lower concentration. Again though, this law only holds true when we think of it in absolute terms. Because all things (things here being physical objects) have some form of particle existence, it is possible that for a short period there might actually be a decrease in entropy, or a gain in energy, for a system. Think of it this way: the second law is really a law of averages. Because air molecules bounce around they tend to disperse, bouncing off of one another and moving through "empty" space until they bounce off of something else. However, it is theoretically possible that if we waited long enough, all of the molecules could, from bouncing off of one another and the walls in the room, all move in the same direction at the same time and thus instead of spreading out group up in one section of the room. But, that situation wouldn't last long, the molecules would immediately start to spread back out again, thus proving the second law true, the energy of the molecules would move from a state of higher concentration to a state of lower concentration.
The third law helps us make sense of all this stuff. Basically the third law says that as the energy in a system spreads out it reaches a constant minimum. Really the law says that as the heat in a system reaches absolute zero, the entropy in the system reaches a constant minimum. In effect this means that absolute zero cannot be reached (as it would require an absolute cessation of all energy) and at the same time means that there is some optimal minimum that all the energy in the universe will necessarily continue toward, until all usable energy is gone.
Okay, that's a lot of science, and I know that it was probably a bit confusing, but I promise we're getting to a pay off. The pay off is this: if we start with absolutely nothing in the universe, then it is necessarily true that we would always have absolutely nothing in the universe. We know this because the laws of thermodynamics make it impossible, now that the universe exists, that it could come into existence currently. Moreover, if these laws are logical laws, that is they themselves are not governed by the existence of the universe, but govern the existence of the universe, then regardless of whether or not the universe exists, the laws still hold true.
On the other hand, if the laws of thermodynamics are in fact governed by the existence of the universe, then there is some higher law which governs them, or there is a necessary mutual dependence of the universe upon the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of thermodynamics upon the universe. If the second is true (trust me, by logical progression we eventually get there anyway, either with the laws of thermodynamics or whatever is behind them) then we are completely incapable of saying how the universe began anyway, because there is no law to which we can appeal to create the universe outside of the universe itself. Basically, if the only laws which exist in the universe are tied to the universe, then without the universe existing there is nothing to cause the universe to come into existence. Without time there is nothing to start time, because the moment prior to time beginning is not really an infinitely long nothing, it is just absolutely nothing, it is non-time. In non-time there cannot suddenly be the event of time, there can only be non-time.
What we are left with is the necessity of that law, whatever it was, that created the universe being independent of the universe. That is, something outside of space-time and all normal realms of causality just made the universe, all that there is, come into being suddenly and without any prior necessity. Logically and scientifically, this is impossible. The existence of the universe is itself a miracle without explanation. It is this inexplicable event that gives us a first reason for giving God the glory, for he alone is the one could create the entire universe from nothing.
Okay, now I know some people are thinking I just waived a mystical wand and got the conclusion I wanted, so I'm going to try and restate the argument above in brief, just for the sake of clarity. If the law that dictated the creation of the universe is interdependent with the universe for its existence, then it cannot explain the creation of the universe, because it could not have existed prior the universe itself. But, if the law that dictated the creation of the universe exists independent of the universe, then it would have been a one-time event law, dictating the creation of the universe and then dictating a universe wherein the laws of thermodynamics would prevent it from ever occurring again. Because the law is necessarily prevented from recurring by the laws of thermodynamics, there is simply no way to prove the law exists, because the events leading the creation of the universe cannot be tested or repeated in a lab. To argue that there is a scientific law that required the universe to come into existence is to state a philosophical position, not a scientifically provable position. To argue that God created the universe is just as much a philosophical argument, but at least seems more plausible to my mind than the alternative.
Why is the idea of God creating the universe more plausible to my mind? God is not bound by space-time, he is not necessarily constrained by the laws of creation, which he created. God is the only explanation that is sufficiently large, and sufficiently reasonable to explain why we have such an exquisitely ordered universe, and how that universe could come into existence from nothing. Can I understand how God could exist and make decisions in non-time? Can I comprehend how God could exist as a trinity, as a spirit, when literally nothing but him existed? Of course I can't explain or comprehend these things, but I know that without them being true I would be left with an illogical universe and the unexplainable mystery of existence. Instead of worrying about what I cannot explain though, I can instead give praise and glory to God, because he is just that wonderful, just that great, and he brings order to what would otherwise be pure insanity.
I bring all this up because Dr. Stephen Hawking has concluded that God is not necessary for the universe. He says, in the article linked above, "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second." Dr. Hawking appeals to some unknown law of science and says that it is scientific law that makes it necessary that we exist. There is no reason to assume this is true, there is simply no law we can point to that says we must exist, the whole argument is a matter of philosophy, and, in reality, it is a matter of theology. Dr. Hawking has turned science into a god, he has declared that the personal God of Scripture is not necessary, and is not real. This is theology, it is the heart of man worshiping an idol so that he does not have to worship the only true and living God. This is the fulfillment of Romans 1:20-23.
Let us not become darkened. Let us not be fools before God. If the world would call us fools, if the greatest scientific minds of our generation would say our God is unnecessary and unreal, let us rejoice in that. For what they worship cannot save them; but our God, the glorious Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, he is able to save. In the end, all else will prove futile, but those who love God will be vindicated and be with him forever.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
My Stance on Embryonic Stem Cell Research
I had a kind friend write to me to point out what he felt were some deficiencies in my position on embryonic stem cells. Because I entered into the last post without giving a thorough defense of my own position, I thought I would post this so that those who are interested might see what I think, and why I am against embryonic stem cell research as it done today. Because this is a response to an email sent to me you may have to read between the lines a little to see what my friend was stating, however, I think my response was thorough enough that you can understand his position and mine from this post.
As a disclaimer, I want to note that I asked his permission to post this comment. I always intend to respect those who wish to keep dialogue private, so you do not have to worry that I'm going to post a long response to anything you email me about, unless you just want it posted. The text of my response email follows:
Dear Sir,
Thank you so much for your comments. I was actually fully aware of everything you noted here (he wrote to me to mention that most of the stem cells used in embryonic stem cell research come from embryos generated by in vitro fertilization, and that the embryos used are donated for the purpose of science, and that they would otherwise be destroyed). None of this changes my position though. My position is: once an egg and a sperm have been joined such that there results a joining of DNA and naturally occurring cellular division and reproduction, that entity is now a new human life. Therefore, because embryonic stem cells are derived from the destruction of these embryos it is an unethical and immoral area of study, due to the fact that it necessarily requires the destruction of a human life in order for research to be conducted.
The issue for me is not where or how the egg is fertilized. My own personal position (and that of my wife) is that if we were unable to naturally conceive, we would adopt. We would not go the route of in vitro feritilization. However, I have no actual moral complaint against women who do go that route, so long as they have fully considered the reality of what they are doing and have weighed their options. I do believe that some couples have acted selfishly in conceiving in vitro, however, couples act selfishly in adopting and in natural pregnancy, so I can hardly raise that as a complaint. Certainly I wouldn't argue that because one person has abused the system the whole enterprise is immoral.
As far as the egg being incapable of surviving on its own, of course it cannot survive on its own. No egg once fertilized can survive on its own. The very nature of any human act of reproduction requires a womb for the baby to develop. The reality that the egg cannot survive outside of the womb does not negate its very real humanity though. This argument is akin to saying that a scientist could remove (in some fashion) an egg that has just implanted itself in a woman's womb, and then say, "I have not killed the child, it simply cannot survive outside of the womb, therefore I should use it to experiment." The issue is not whether it (the embryo) was implanted at any given time nor whether it could survive outside the womb at any given time, the issue is what "it" is.
As to the throwing away of embryos, I do find this to be a rather abhorrent situation. Most embryos are frozen for extended periods of time, and quite safely at that, so we can store embryos as a stop-gap for our current situation. I would fully agree that embryos ought not be destroyed. One possible solution that I think rightly answers the seriousness of the situation are embryo adoption groups who seek to stop the destruction of innocent children by finding those will adopt the embryos and raise them as their children. Hopefully, with the ability to safely preserve embryos, those willing to adopt unused embryos, and the advancement of in vitro fertilization, the number of embryos destroyed will decrease and eventually stopped altogether.
I am aware that most science requires years of study in order to advance to a particularly useful point. Stem cell research, in general, has advanced to the point where over 70 different treatments are being done using them. All of these have been derived from adult stem cells though. I have come across only one treatment that I know of where embryonic stem cells have been used to derive a treatment (for a form of blindness). I am sure that additional treatments will be developed in the coming years and decades, perhaps even additional treatments from embryonic stem cells, but no amount of time will change the morality of committing murder today for the sake of future benefit.
There are also those who make (perhaps valid) arguments that embryonic stem cell research, while not yielding cures, is helping us to better understand early biological developments and cellular development in general, in ways that adult stem cells do not. This research, it is argued, has multiple uses and much value, and is invaluable in itself because of how it deepens our understanding of biology. These arguments do not change my position any more than the arguments that we are deriving cells from embryos that would be destroyed. My argument is not against the research being done, nor even the question of whether there is valid research being done, such arguments, to me, are secondary. My argument is, and remains, solely with the means of deriving the materials necessary for the research being done.
Allow me to give you what I consider to be a valid example of my position: Imagine, if you will, that a scientist argued (reasonably) that, if he were allowed to kill 10 babies he could utilize the material from those babies to develop potentially life saving research. He would not steal babies, he would only use deformed babies who had been abandoned at hospitals and who would die within 3 months. However, he could not wait for those babies to die naturally, he had to, instead, actually kill the babies in order to conduct his research. He would kill the babies quickly, they would feel no pain, and he could not guarantee results, but he was confident that within 20 years he could have some results.
Would it be okay with you if he conducted the research? Would it be right to fund that research with public money? Would any amount of results make his research ethical? What if he could guarantee results within 5 years? What if he only needed to use 2 babies? My argument is that such research, regardless of its rewards, regardless of its potential, regardless of its potential "return on investment" would be immoral, because it relies upon the murder of innocent human lives. Because I believe that God is the creator of life, and that he creates a new life at the moment of conception, I believe that it is murder to destroy embryos for research, and thus any research conducted from that position is immoral.
We do not make life, we can only bring together physical components (egg and sperm) God actually creates the life that results. Therefore, for us to murder that life, at any stage, is an act of immorality. When we determine who has the right to live and die based on what value they may contribute to us as a society, or to science as an experimental specimen, we begin to play God. This is the temptation of Satan in the Garden, "You can become like God, knowing (determining) good and evil." This is the root of all human sin, our decision to place our ethics above God's clearly revealed will.
Those who would argue against my position must first convince themselves of one thing: what we are destroying, when we kill and embryo, is not a human life. Yes, it is undergoing cellular development, yes if placed within its most natural environment, (a womb) it has the potential to grow and develop all the way to the point of birth as a baby, yes it has human DNA and is rightly recognized as an independent living organism, but it is still not a human. My complaint with embryonic stem cell research thus rests upon the same foundation of my argument against abortion: we do not create life, and we do not get to determine when a human becomes a human. Because of the very serious moral complaint that God could raise against us, we are better to err on the side of caution, that we may seek the blessings of God in the rest of our lives. Let us not assume a wisdom beyond ourselves, but rather recognize that when confronted with a mystery, it is best that we act humbly and move cautiously, lest we overextend ourselves and stride proudly into sin.
Now, since I have laid out quite thoroughly why I am against embryonic stem cell research, I do want to say that I am not entirely against embryonic stem cell research. If there were a means of deriving embryonic stem cells not related to the destruction of embryos I would have no compunction against research done on those cells. Thus, if there were, for instance, some way that scientists could derive embryonic stem cells from umbilical cords, or if they were able to harvest some from embryonic fluid withdrawn during necessary in utero surgeries, or some other means, then I would not be against doing research based on those cell lines. (However, if scientists withdrew embryonic fluid solely for the purpose of attempting to harvest embryonic stem cells, and thus endangered a pregnancy, I would be against that.) The issue for me is entirely the means by which the cell lines are developed, and as long as even one embryo is destroyed, or one child needlessly endangered, I will continue to protest that this is an act of gross immorality.
Caiaphas said, "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." John made clear that Caiaphas was prophesying that Christ would die in order to bring all of God's children together, as one. But, for Caiaphas, what he intended was that it was better to kill Jesus than that Jesus should bring the wrath of Rome on Israel. (John 11:47-53) Even if it meant that Caiaphas had to bring false charges against Jesus and reject the Christ of God, he would kill one man in order to protect his nation. While we can understand his passion, we rightly reject his actions as immoral and worthy of condemnation. Are we somehow more innocent than him if we allow the murder of babies, the murder of innocent children, humans, regardless of how they came into being, for the sake of research? Do our "good" goals make right our wicked actions today?
As a disclaimer, I want to note that I asked his permission to post this comment. I always intend to respect those who wish to keep dialogue private, so you do not have to worry that I'm going to post a long response to anything you email me about, unless you just want it posted. The text of my response email follows:
Dear Sir,
Thank you so much for your comments. I was actually fully aware of everything you noted here (he wrote to me to mention that most of the stem cells used in embryonic stem cell research come from embryos generated by in vitro fertilization, and that the embryos used are donated for the purpose of science, and that they would otherwise be destroyed). None of this changes my position though. My position is: once an egg and a sperm have been joined such that there results a joining of DNA and naturally occurring cellular division and reproduction, that entity is now a new human life. Therefore, because embryonic stem cells are derived from the destruction of these embryos it is an unethical and immoral area of study, due to the fact that it necessarily requires the destruction of a human life in order for research to be conducted.
The issue for me is not where or how the egg is fertilized. My own personal position (and that of my wife) is that if we were unable to naturally conceive, we would adopt. We would not go the route of in vitro feritilization. However, I have no actual moral complaint against women who do go that route, so long as they have fully considered the reality of what they are doing and have weighed their options. I do believe that some couples have acted selfishly in conceiving in vitro, however, couples act selfishly in adopting and in natural pregnancy, so I can hardly raise that as a complaint. Certainly I wouldn't argue that because one person has abused the system the whole enterprise is immoral.
As far as the egg being incapable of surviving on its own, of course it cannot survive on its own. No egg once fertilized can survive on its own. The very nature of any human act of reproduction requires a womb for the baby to develop. The reality that the egg cannot survive outside of the womb does not negate its very real humanity though. This argument is akin to saying that a scientist could remove (in some fashion) an egg that has just implanted itself in a woman's womb, and then say, "I have not killed the child, it simply cannot survive outside of the womb, therefore I should use it to experiment." The issue is not whether it (the embryo) was implanted at any given time nor whether it could survive outside the womb at any given time, the issue is what "it" is.
As to the throwing away of embryos, I do find this to be a rather abhorrent situation. Most embryos are frozen for extended periods of time, and quite safely at that, so we can store embryos as a stop-gap for our current situation. I would fully agree that embryos ought not be destroyed. One possible solution that I think rightly answers the seriousness of the situation are embryo adoption groups who seek to stop the destruction of innocent children by finding those will adopt the embryos and raise them as their children. Hopefully, with the ability to safely preserve embryos, those willing to adopt unused embryos, and the advancement of in vitro fertilization, the number of embryos destroyed will decrease and eventually stopped altogether.
I am aware that most science requires years of study in order to advance to a particularly useful point. Stem cell research, in general, has advanced to the point where over 70 different treatments are being done using them. All of these have been derived from adult stem cells though. I have come across only one treatment that I know of where embryonic stem cells have been used to derive a treatment (for a form of blindness). I am sure that additional treatments will be developed in the coming years and decades, perhaps even additional treatments from embryonic stem cells, but no amount of time will change the morality of committing murder today for the sake of future benefit.
There are also those who make (perhaps valid) arguments that embryonic stem cell research, while not yielding cures, is helping us to better understand early biological developments and cellular development in general, in ways that adult stem cells do not. This research, it is argued, has multiple uses and much value, and is invaluable in itself because of how it deepens our understanding of biology. These arguments do not change my position any more than the arguments that we are deriving cells from embryos that would be destroyed. My argument is not against the research being done, nor even the question of whether there is valid research being done, such arguments, to me, are secondary. My argument is, and remains, solely with the means of deriving the materials necessary for the research being done.
Allow me to give you what I consider to be a valid example of my position: Imagine, if you will, that a scientist argued (reasonably) that, if he were allowed to kill 10 babies he could utilize the material from those babies to develop potentially life saving research. He would not steal babies, he would only use deformed babies who had been abandoned at hospitals and who would die within 3 months. However, he could not wait for those babies to die naturally, he had to, instead, actually kill the babies in order to conduct his research. He would kill the babies quickly, they would feel no pain, and he could not guarantee results, but he was confident that within 20 years he could have some results.
Would it be okay with you if he conducted the research? Would it be right to fund that research with public money? Would any amount of results make his research ethical? What if he could guarantee results within 5 years? What if he only needed to use 2 babies? My argument is that such research, regardless of its rewards, regardless of its potential, regardless of its potential "return on investment" would be immoral, because it relies upon the murder of innocent human lives. Because I believe that God is the creator of life, and that he creates a new life at the moment of conception, I believe that it is murder to destroy embryos for research, and thus any research conducted from that position is immoral.
We do not make life, we can only bring together physical components (egg and sperm) God actually creates the life that results. Therefore, for us to murder that life, at any stage, is an act of immorality. When we determine who has the right to live and die based on what value they may contribute to us as a society, or to science as an experimental specimen, we begin to play God. This is the temptation of Satan in the Garden, "You can become like God, knowing (determining) good and evil." This is the root of all human sin, our decision to place our ethics above God's clearly revealed will.
Those who would argue against my position must first convince themselves of one thing: what we are destroying, when we kill and embryo, is not a human life. Yes, it is undergoing cellular development, yes if placed within its most natural environment, (a womb) it has the potential to grow and develop all the way to the point of birth as a baby, yes it has human DNA and is rightly recognized as an independent living organism, but it is still not a human. My complaint with embryonic stem cell research thus rests upon the same foundation of my argument against abortion: we do not create life, and we do not get to determine when a human becomes a human. Because of the very serious moral complaint that God could raise against us, we are better to err on the side of caution, that we may seek the blessings of God in the rest of our lives. Let us not assume a wisdom beyond ourselves, but rather recognize that when confronted with a mystery, it is best that we act humbly and move cautiously, lest we overextend ourselves and stride proudly into sin.
Now, since I have laid out quite thoroughly why I am against embryonic stem cell research, I do want to say that I am not entirely against embryonic stem cell research. If there were a means of deriving embryonic stem cells not related to the destruction of embryos I would have no compunction against research done on those cells. Thus, if there were, for instance, some way that scientists could derive embryonic stem cells from umbilical cords, or if they were able to harvest some from embryonic fluid withdrawn during necessary in utero surgeries, or some other means, then I would not be against doing research based on those cell lines. (However, if scientists withdrew embryonic fluid solely for the purpose of attempting to harvest embryonic stem cells, and thus endangered a pregnancy, I would be against that.) The issue for me is entirely the means by which the cell lines are developed, and as long as even one embryo is destroyed, or one child needlessly endangered, I will continue to protest that this is an act of gross immorality.
Caiaphas said, "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." John made clear that Caiaphas was prophesying that Christ would die in order to bring all of God's children together, as one. But, for Caiaphas, what he intended was that it was better to kill Jesus than that Jesus should bring the wrath of Rome on Israel. (John 11:47-53) Even if it meant that Caiaphas had to bring false charges against Jesus and reject the Christ of God, he would kill one man in order to protect his nation. While we can understand his passion, we rightly reject his actions as immoral and worthy of condemnation. Are we somehow more innocent than him if we allow the murder of babies, the murder of innocent children, humans, regardless of how they came into being, for the sake of research? Do our "good" goals make right our wicked actions today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)