I support stem cell research

Human Stem Cell ResearchNeil Gaimen supports stem cell research, too.

Since President Obama removed the restrictions on stem cell research funding, the National Institute of Health has been working on a set of guidelines for scientists wanting said funding. A draft of the guidelines has been issued and the next 14 days are the public comment period for those guidelines, so this is the chance to let your opinion be heard on the matter.

According to Don Reed, a national stem cell research advocate, the guidelines are a bit more conservative than hoped, but more importantly, are being flooded by stem cell research opponents. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued an action alert to oppose the funding and evidently, of the 6,000+ responses received so far, 99% of them are opposed to stem cell research.

You can add your comments in support of stem cell research on the NIH’s website using their comment form.

Don Reed said (emphasis mine)…

Your comment can be as short as “I support embryonic stem cell research, and am glad some of the restrictions are being loosened.“  That matters.

Anyone who clicks on the comment box, and writes in a sentence-that message will be tallied as one citizen in support. Of course, you may say more if you want. If you are a long-term research supporter,  our letter will be put in the expert witness category.

He also notes that more than one person in a family can comment. It takes less than 60 seconds to complete the information in the comment form and add your support to stem cell research.

Let’s not let religious dogma hobble this research… research that has some of the greatest potential for critical healthcare advances in science today.

Please take the time to comment using the NIH form before the May 26th deadline.

It seems I was a bit vague.

My last post about gluten-free communion wafers seems to have a conclusion that is a bit vague… at least a lot more vague than I’d intended (ie… not at all). The two commenters, “David” and “stephanie” concluded that my post was criticizing the Catholic church’s position on the gluten content of the Eucharist hosts.

The Catholic church doctrine seems to require that hosts contain gluten in order to qualify as “bread,” otherwise it cannot properly transubstantiate into the body of Christ. This, of course, poses a problem for coeliac sufferers who cannot tolerate any gluten in their diets.

Although I agree one hundred percent with the comments made by “David” and “stephanie,” and I support them in their fight to be included in their religious ceremonies, the issue of immutable church doctrine was not the focused intent of my post.

My intended point was that, since the Catholic church believes that the host physically transforms into the body of Christ, the wafer would no longer contain gluten when it’s eaten. So, if what Catholics profess to believe is actually true, the host could be made of 100% wheat gluten before being consecrated, but afterward it would contain 0% gluten and would be safe to eat, even by the most severe coeliac sufferer.

Since it’s obviously an issue (and a completely valid one, I agree), it would seem that Catholics, including the clergy, do not really believe that transubstantiation occurs. And more importantly, if any coeliac sufferer has ever had a reaction to a consecrated host (a brief search turned up nothing), it would seem that transubstantiation actually does not occur.

My sincerest best wishes to “David” and “stephanie,” though.

Jesus is Gluten Free

Eucharist hostsLast week, I heard mention of a company making gluten-free hosts (or communion wafers). I didn’t think much of it, since it seems logical that someone (especially a child) who had coeliac disease would not want to eat something during communion that would make him ill.

However, upon further examination, I found the issue to be very odd, particularly with regard to the Catholic faith. Catholics believe that when the bread and the wine are consecrated during the Eucharist service, something called transubstantiation occurs, which means the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ.

From Wikipedia…

The Roman Catholic Church accordingly believes that through transubstantiation Christ is really, truly and substantially present under the remaining appearances of bread and wine, and that the transformation remains as long as the appearances remain.

Not wanting to just take Wikipedia’s word for it, I dug a little deeper and found that, indeed, transubstantiation is a basic Catholic belief.

Here’s what Catholic Culture has to say…

Catholics believe in the doctrine of “transubstantiation,” that the bread and wine become, in a substantial way, the Body and Blood of Christ.

From Ancient and Future Catholics…

Essentially, the Church teaches that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ in substance, while the incidentals (or accidents), the physical characteristics of bread and wine, remain. This means that what you see, feel, and touch will seem to be bread and wine, while in reality, they are actually the body and blood of Christ.

And, unless it’s changed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says…

By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.

So after seeing that idea documented in various places (I only listed a few), I’d have to assume that Catholics truly believe that the bread and wine become the actual body of Christ. I can’t say that I find that rational, in any sense, but I have an understanding that it is a Catholic belief.

This all came to a head when I read a question-answer article on the Eternal Word Television Network, Global Catholic Network about a girl who couldn’t receive her first communion because she was allergic to wheat gluten. She states that it’s Catholic Church doctrine that the hosts be made with wheat gluten.

I found the answer to be quite interesting (and involved). After giving some historical rationale, Father Edward McNamara replies…

The Holy See has declared that some gluten is necessary for the substance to be considered as true bread. And thus a gluten-free wafer, in spite of its external resemblance, is no longer bread and thus is incapable of becoming the Body of Christ.

The sacraments are far too important to risk performing them invalidly.

He then goes on to explain that it presents a problem for coeliac sufferers because they shouldn’t have to worry about whether their hosts were genuinely consecrated. He says…

It would be a manifest act of negligence on the Church’s part to look the other way while some members of the faithful were being innocently induced into an act of idolatry by attributing adoration to what is in fact a lump of matter.

So it’s critically important that the host contains gluten because otherwise, it would not qualify as “bread” and would be incapable of becoming the Body of Christ… thereby invalidating the sacrament, unbeknownst to church members.

Happily, the situation has been addressed and a solution has been found.

Recently, however, another solution has been found thanks to the patience and perseverance of two nuns, Sisters Jane Heschmeyer and Lynn Marie D’Souza, of the Benedictine convent in Clyde, Missouri. Over two years of experiments they have developed a Communion wafer that has been approved as valid material for the Eucharist by the Holy See.

With a level of gluten content of 0.01% it is safe enough for consumption by almost all celiac suffers, according to Dr. Alessio Fasano of the University of Maryland and other medical experts.

So, with all that (boring) background information, I can now get to the problem that I see here.

If the host actually becomes the body of Christ, why does it matter whether or not it originally has any gluten in it? According to Catholic doctrine, when the host is consecrated, it becomes the body of Christ and since the human body doesn’t contain wheat gluten, there should be no danger to anyone, including coeliac sufferers. No Catholics should ever have to refuse the Eucharist unless they have an allergy to human flesh or blood. Wheat gluten should be a complete non-issue.

What I take away from this is that even Catholics don’t really believe in transubstantiation. They may say they do, but when it comes right down to it, they don’t… otherwise gluten-free (or nearly free) hosts would never even come up as an issue. It’s the same as quite a few other religious notions that people claim to believe, but don’t.

Perhaps that’s a topic for another post.

Despair? Who has time for that?

Daniel Florien at Unreasonable Faith asked his readers what they do when they face despair. There are quite a few good responses, but the comment by “darlene” takes the cake hands down.

I can only speak for me, but I don’t ever face despair.

How can I despair, when I know that my actions have the ability to change and effect my world? How can I despair when I know that the only “forces” moving against me are either random chance or scientifically based or just other humans being nits? How can I despair when I am free to make choices as needed to meet the circumstances, without worrying about an overseerer who may disapprove?

Despair? When I can look at my life and claim absolute responsibility for all my triumphs as well as my failures? When I can know that I am where I am because of my own abilities and actions and ambitions; and that if I don’t like where I am I can change it?

I have so much power over my own life, and I am mindful of that power. I fill my days with good books; and educating my child (I homeschool); and being a spouse; and working with my dogs; learning new things and reinforcing old lessons and doing volunteer work that is meaningful to me…I choose my life, and the people in it.

Despair? Who has time for that? For me despair is a luxury, a chance to wallow in defeat for a few minutes, before I’m planning a comeback. Sure, I get sad, blue, sick, tired, sick AND tired, annoyed, etc…but despair?

I think true despair comes from helplessness–a complete inability to control one’s life and the events therein. Since I don’t have the option of handing control of my life over to anyone else, despair doesn’t really play a part. It has nothing to latch onto.

So how does this atheist face despair? By not giving it a toehold in the first place.

But that’s just me.

Mike Pence says Republicans are not Anti-Science

ScienceRepresentative Mike Pence (R-Ind.) spoke to Chris Matthews in defense of Republicans, saying that his party is not anti-science and that this whole “anti-science thing is a little bit weak.”

That, in and of itself, would not be particularly noteworthy. However, in the same interview, Pence goes on to show that he, himself, is quite anti-science… which seems, to me, to somewhat negate his credibility in defending the Republicans on science issues.

When asked if he believed in evolution, Pence replied…

I embrace the view that God created the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that’s in them…the means that he used to do that, I can’t say.

He also expressed skepticism about the science surrounding global warming.

From an article on Politico…

On global warming, Pence said that Republicans are “more than willing to stand for clean air,” but added that “in the mainstream media there is a denial about the growing skepticism about global warming.”

I find the claim of a “growing skepticism” to be interesting. If the skepticism is growing, it’s definitely not among scientists with knowledge in relevant fields of study.

Then Pence drops this bit of joy.

“What is science but an exploration?” Pence asked. “Science is an explanation of demonstrable facts, isn’t it?”

I suppose, as a very simple summary, that’s true. However, it’s not particularly accurate. For instance, creationism (and ID), despite providing an “explanation of demonstrable facts” is not science. Science depends on a method, a series of steps, without which you have no science. If you bypass the steps, as does creationism, you can’t claim to be scientific. Pence, in that one quote alone, shows that he really doesn’t get science.

Here’s the video of the full interview (or at least a large part). It’s kind of painful to watch. Matthews keeps pushing the question about evolution, but Pence refuses to give any answer other than his “God created the heavens and earth” answer. Pence also makes the claim that Democrats put ideology over science regarding stem cell policy (?!?). It’s a lot of dancing around the questions on Pence’s part.

He also intimates that schools should be teaching creationism alongside evolution, but doesn’t say it outright.

So on one hand, Pence says the Republican party is not anti-science, but then on the other, his answers show him to be unequivocally anti-science.

Is that irony or hypocrisy?

Barry Goldwater on Religious Pressure in Politics

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent.

If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’

– Barry Goldwater, Congressional Record, September 16th, 1981

(via Library Grape)

Creationism = Intelligent Design = Not Science

Man and DinosaurI’ve done a lot of reading recently about Evolution and Intelligent Design (Creationism) and really, the arguments for Intelligent Design, whether they’re being put forth by unqualified supporters in Texas or by biologists like Michael Behe, are all non-starters. ID supporters have yet to come up with any evidence to support their theory. Their arguments consist solely of attempts to cast doubt upon the scientifically supported theory of evolution, attempts which always fail, but sadly seem to take hold of those who really have no knowledge of evolutionary theory or the evidence that supports it.

I was delighted to find this article at Evaluating Christianity about the nonsense put forth by Young Earth Creationists. It’s witty and insightful and definitely worth taking the time to read.

Here are some highlights. I’ll quote this bit for starters.

If creationists are correct, then not only do we need to scrap all of biology, but we need to throw out everything we think we know about archaeology, anthropology, astronomy, geology (no plate tectonics!), chemistry and physics (since radiometric dating is supposedly unreliable), and probably a few dozen other scientific disciplines. Think about that for a minute. If young-earth creationism is correct, then every single scientist in any of these fields of study is either an idiot or a fraud.

If you find that hard to swallow, you’re not alone.

I find it interesting that, of the Young Earth Creationists that I know (only a few), none of them reject science out of hand. I don’t think any of them deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun or that the Earth has shifting plates that cause earthquakes when they change position or many other science’y ideas. They seem to, out of necessity to support their views, only deny the science that contradicts their bibles. It’s “pick and choose” science… somewhat like “pick and choose” biblical religion, it would seem.

Anyway… here’s my favorite part because it really hits the nail on the head with regard to arguments about evolution and science.

This is why I don’t take creationism seriously. Not because I “reject the Bible” or “have differing views of the evidence,” or whatever. I don’t take it seriously because the people who are qualified to weigh in on these claims — people of varying backgrounds, races, religious and political beliefs — have done so and reject your claims.

I imagine that some (like longtime EC commenter Nathaniel) may try to draw the same analogy to Biblical historians versus Jesus-mythers. But here’s the main difference: by their own admission, 30% of Biblical historians concede that there was no empty tomb. If 30% of biologists denied common ancestry, or 30% of astronomers thought that the stars were 6,000 years old, then we would indeed have a real controversy and those ideas should be engaged on their merits.

For example: a small minority of paleontologists, led by Jack Horner, contend that T.rex was a scavenger rather than an apex predator. This is a highly contested hypothesis and is subscribed to by only a tiny minority of palentologists — but it is, nevertheless, a respectable scientific dispute.

It’s a simple and clear explanation of why some disputes are valid and others are really not (check out the rest of the article for context and additional arguments).

If you’re going to make attempts to refute scientific theories, then you’d better have a scientific argument. Creationists don’t have one, and never will, because the basis of their entire position is thoroughly unscientific. You can’t propose “it was magic” as your explanation and expect to be taken seriously.

Not even by magicians.

Would This Be an Image of Cheesus?

Sorry for the bad joke… but this sort of is a bad joke. Here’s a perfect example of the human brain being geared toward pattern-seeking and face recognition… sometimes called pareidolia or “patternicity.”

This woman makes some toast with melted cheese on it and the sees the burn pattern on the cheese as the face of Jesus. And then, to make the story even more bizarre, she keeps it in her bedroom in a Tupperware container.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbvIM0TC3NI

(via)

Ken Ham Confirms His Moral Bankruptcy

Ken Ham in the Creation MuseumOn Opposing Views, Ken Ham wrote an opinion piece about the creation of the new Answers in Genesis video showing a young boy pointing a gun at the camera while a voice-over says, “If you don’t matter to God, you don’t matter to anyone.”

Along with my opinion that it is a fear-mongering, horrible message to convey, the video has been lambasted here and here and here (among other places). Video aside, however, Ham’s writing shows just how morally bankrupt he is. He asks, without God, why should we protect each other or act with kindness and understanding to our fellow human beings?

Here’s one passage in particular.

If we are truly just evolved from ape-like ancestors, then why should we fight for the sanctity of life and protect and cherish it at all costs? Why is it important for us to exercise self-control when we are angry or frustrated? Why should we deal with problems with love and understanding instead of violence if there is no sanctity of life? If God really doesn’t matter and perhaps does not even exist—if Darwin was right all along and we just randomly evolved from ape-like creatures, if we aren’t fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of a divine and loving God, then go ahead—let survival of the fittest rule supreme.

This is an all-too-common refrain heard from fundamentalists. I’ve addressed it here and here already, but just to emphasize the point… if you can’t come up with reasons to act kindly toward your fellow human beings without the threat of eternal damnation, then you’re morally bankrupt from the get-go. If you are only acting “morally” because of the dictates of a 2,000 year old manuscript, you’ve got no moral foundation. Christianity, in particular, is a free pass to sin your life away.

Oh, but there’s more from Mr. Ham!

If the Ten Commandments are ripped off the walls of our schools and courtrooms and disregarded as a basic ethical God-given code of conduct, then who should care if kids are killing kids and men are attacking defenseless women in their driveways at home at night? We watch animals hunt and tear each other apart every night on the Discovery channel. If you don’t matter to God, than tell me—do you truly matter to anyone? If God doesn’t care about what happens to you, is anyone else obligated to care?

If I wasn’t already familiar with Ken Ham’s general shenanigans, I would say the preceding paragraph was satire. Sadly, it’s not. In one paragraph, he displays his ignorance not only of evolution, but of human nature… of human psychology.

I’m sure that a vast majority of parents in the world would eagerly say that, even if a god didn’t give a rip about one of their children, that child would still matter hugely to the parent. The idea of a caring god is not a factor in why people care about their children… or their friends… or their family. At least, it isn’t for people who honestly care about others. Caring based on biblical dogma is shallow at best and intellectually abhorrent at worst.

In addition, I’ll go out on a limb here and speculate that even without the idea of a divine creator, almost all human beings can come up with reasonable distinctions between lower animals and humans. Most people can probably recognize how human behavior is (generally) based on more than just primal instinct.

It seems that Ken Ham is incapable of doing that. If God doesn’t care about us, he postulates, why would we act any differently than predator and prey on the Discovery Channel?

Ken Ham is the kind of person that I would not let near my daughter unsupervised. I wouldn’t feel safe having her around someone who is only acting kindly because he’s just following some ancient rules, fears divine retribution, or believes that a supernatural deity is keeping him under control. I’d hate to think what horrible actions are tempting Mr. Ham, contained only by his faith in a god. His irresponsible statements imply that humans are like barely contained rodeo bulls, precariously held in check only by the surrounding fence of God’s love.

The problem is that the fence is imaginary. If that’s the only reason people act kindly toward their fellow human beings, then as a species, we’re doomed.

Fortunately for us, it’s not the only reason. For most people, it’s probably not even truly a factor. And actually, I doubt that Ken Ham is a dangerous (other than intellectually) person chomping at the bit to steal, rape, and murder. I think he, like most humans on the planet, can tell right from wrong and act kindly without having to reference ancient dogma. People don’t need it to be good.

To be bad, however, and feel righteous about it… almost invariably requires religious dogma. Stephen Weinberg once said, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” I suspect Ken Ham would disagree with that statement, given his apparent notion that God is the only thing that makes us good.

…but he also thinks the Ten Commandments are a good ethical code of conduct.

So Much for Catwoman

I’m not even sure how to begin with this one. It seems that the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops finds it necessary to have Senator Danny Martiny file a bill that will prohibit Louisiana scientists from creating human-animal hybrids for experimentation. I’m not kidding.

Conference lobbyist Danny Loar said the bill is designed to be a “pre-emptive strike” against scientists who might want to mix “human and animal cells in a Petri dish for scientific research purposes. . . . It is becoming more of an issue globally.”

Then there’s this statement…

Martiny and Loar said they are unaware of any attempts to do that type of research in Louisiana.

However, that won’t stop them from proposing legislation to ban it. I mean, it’s becoming a global issue! It’s not like there’s more important stuff that should be dealt with in Louisiana right now, anyway. Maybe they should also propose legislation banning the use of insects in space-flight research. I’m unaware of any attempts to do that type of research in Louisiana, but it could happen!

Martiny’s bill would make it illegal to “create or attempt to create a human-animal hybrid, . . . transfer or attempt to transfer a human embryo into a non-human womb . . . (or) transfer or attempt to transfer a non-human embryo into a human womb.”

That’s a far cry from doing some stem cell research. It seems that, about a year ago, the British Parliament approved legislation allowing scientists to mix human and animal DNA in cloning experiments. Any human embryos created this way would be destroyed after 14 days, the goal being to create new stem cells for use in research into the curing of diseases. They did, however, reject using sex cells of a human and an animal.

The Louisiana bill, however, seems to take issue with creating growing creatures in the womb… sort of a Doctor Moreau thing (though he was a vivisectionist). There doesn’t seem to be any attempt by scientists to create any sort of viable human-animal hybrid, yet it seems to be a fear of the Catholic Bishops… enough so to persuade a state senator to propose legislation banning it.

I’m not really sure what’s sillier: the fear that scientists are going to make mutant human-animal hybrids or the fact that a state senator actual proposed a legal ban on the act, presumably with a straight face.

At least Vincent gets grandfathered in.