AcademicFreedomBlog

The announcement Tuesday of the development of
induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) will change the ethical debate over embryonic
stem cell research, because it has all the potential of by-passing the need for
embryo destruction. Until now, only embryos could yield cells capable of
developing into all three types of cells that comprise animal bodies (heart,
nerve, and flesh). iPS cells, produced by reversing the nature of adult skins,
can now do the same. Researchers have even produced cells that beat like a
heart. The process involves exposing cells to a virus that inserts a DNA
sequence into the skin cells. It is the sequence that says, "turn on undefined
cell reproduction."  The caveat is that the point of insertion of the
sequence into the existing DNA chain is at this point random. If it goes in at
the wrong place, cancer results. Cancer is basically the uncontrolled
reproduction of cells, reproducing so fast that they do not form complete,
healthy cells. The article cited above fails to mention that this is the primary
problem with embryonic stem cells, but the point is that we are in the same
position without embryo destruction, plus the technique that creates the
condition holds promise to solve the problem it creates. It will be interesting
to see if proponents of embryonic stem cell research will fade away, or continue
to lobby that they must have funding for embryo destruction.

Another observation that begs to be made here: This example
illustrates that every process in every cell must receive two signals, and they
must be independent from each other in the DNA structure. The process must be
turned on, and the process must be turned off. In this case the process is
reproduction, but it’s true for any process in the cell. If the process is not
turned on, life doesn’t happen. If the process is not turned off, life self
destructs. Even processes that are continuous must be regulated for speed with
something that monitors a minimum and maximum speed. Because every cell process
requires these bookends, every process performed in the cell is an example of
irreducible complexity. Under no circumstances could any controlled process
occur by accident, much less the entire organization of processes we call life.

The part I find most interesting about Theodore Dalrymple’s"What the New Atheists Don’t See," is that Dalrymple is himself an atheist. Still, he finds he must distance himself from the attacks he sees the new guys making on religion and Christianity in particular. His arguments are quite valid and completely stated, but his style places them on a shelf too high for most fast readers. Indulge me to simplify a couple of his points. Below is a paragraph I had to read several times to get, speaking of Daniel Dennett’s argument that religious belief has probably evolved and passed on via our DNA, therefore making God a biological construct, therefore not real:

“For Dennett, to prove the biological origin of belief in God is to show its irrationality, to break its spell. But of course it is a necessary part of the argument that all possible human beliefs, including belief in evolution, must be explicable in precisely the same way; or else why single out religion for this treatment? Either we test ideas according to arguments in their favor, independent of their origins, thus making the argument from evolution irrelevant, or all possible beliefs come under the same suspicion of being only evolutionary adaptations—and thus biologically contingent rather than true or false. We find ourselves facing a version of the paradox of the Cretan liar: all beliefs, including this one, are the products of evolution, and all beliefs that are products of evolution cannot be known to be true.”

In other words, if you are going to discredit belief in God by making faith biological, then you at the same time discredit anything we believe, including evolution. I would further add that if faith is rooted in DNA, then that "fact" would have little bearing on the existence of God, except to suggest the possibility that it would make sense for God to place it there so we would seek Him out.

Dalrymple also offers the following paragraph concerning the idea that
Christianity has hurt civilization–something the atheist Dalrymple must object to as ungrounded:

"The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy. And in my own view, the absence of religious faith, provided that such faith is not murderously intolerant, can have a deleterious effect upon human character and personality. If you empty the world of purpose, make it one of brute fact alone, you empty it (for many people, at any rate) of reasons for gratitude, and a sense of gratitude is necessary for both happiness and decency. For what can soon, and all too easily, replace gratitude is a sense of entitlement. Without gratitude, it is hard to appreciate, or be satisfied with, what you have: and life will become an existential shopping spree that no product satisfies."

After this one I had to go back and find again Dalrymple’s profession of atheism earlier in the article, just to be sure I got that right. An atheist is pointing out that without tolerant belief in God, people would be without purpose, happiness and decency? Yep, there is his faith statement, in the second paragraph of the article. Dalrymple offers no defense for his own atheism–just an incident from his childhood that left a bad impression. I choose to assume he has more logical defense today and that he simply held back to keep his article on focus–the shallowness of the new atheism. I commend Dalrymple’s brutal honesty (brutal toward his co-believers). He overall makes two important points: First, there is a new atheism, and it is brazenly attacking religion and Christianity in particular. No more in-the-closet or even
civility for these atheists. Second, in order to attack religion (instead of just tolerating it) they are having to use shallow arguments or even misrepresent facts. Even atheists are embarrassed for them.