From Embryo or From Blood Cells: Obama and McCain's Stem Cell Showdown

Ok that's funny. This morning there were several comments on this story and they've all disappeared. Who's responsbible?

Stem cells won't save you and your soul. We won't be part of destruction of unborn babies in this country.

Hi rddaos,
I think you may be talking about the comments on the question seven piece (this question eight article has only been up since this afternoon). Hope this helps.

Where's the science behind the existence of a soul? The exercise of Faith in execution of Law should be illegal.

I applaud PopSci for running this article to help clarify the candidates' positions. We at Betterhumans.com try to post news items weekly about the science of stem cells and stories about ordinary Americans who have to travel abroad to get therapies.

podboq,

I'd be interestead to hear how you define science, and what exactly science can say. Also I'd like to know what you define as Faith. I get the feeling that you may be unaware of some of the implications of what you are saying based on what I infer your definitions of the above mentioned things to be.

What? How is that a valid question? Both science and faith (in the context of the belief in a human soul) have clear definitions, sure the wording may change from source to source but the main idea is the same:

Science: Conclusions, definition, and knowledge based on empirical evidence, observational experiments, and systematic study.

Faith: Maintaining a belief system in the absence of scientific proof, specifically for Christians: "the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved."...without evidence or proof.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me, what’s more I completely agree. There’s room for morals in the law, but no room for faith.

if you can get stem cell else where no-one should have a problem with it now the only reason people would be getting worked up about this is that stem-cells have been demonized

householdutensils,

It's not a valid question only in that it wasn't a question at all. It was a statement.

The reason that I'm interestead is that I do not think most people realize that while science itself is about most of the things you mentioned, the worldviews science is done in are not. May I assume that you believe in a naturalistic method of origins? You have some axioms which you use as a foundation for what you believe. You use science as part of the method to test the consistancey of the worldview you build up from those axioms. However, science cannot prove those axioms true. At best it can show that they form an inconsistent system, or at least a system inconsistent with observation. Like it or not, these axioms are taken by faith. You can use logic to show an inconsistency in them, or science to show they do not match observed reality, but you cannot prove them true. For instance, I would assume you would take the 'Copernican Principal' to be true. If this is not taken on faith, then you should (without using some circular reasoning) give reasoning for taking it to be true.

The truth is, everyone lives by faith in something, it's just that some people are more honest about it.

Woohoo!! Discussions <3

The difference between the Copernican principal and a religion is that we can observe cmb in the universe relative to our cosmological position and determine that we are nowhere near the centre of the universe (Or even our own galaxy for that matter) and the fact that we are not special is backed by empirical evidence, that is, we can actively observe and monitor other celestial bodies, star systems, and galaxies like our own. While the existence of some sort of omnipotent being, or metaphysical soulform cannot be backed up anything other than stories from a time of ignorance and persecution, and eyewitness accounts of visions and such.

My previous post defined (And I think podboq will agree) the differences between Science, and Religious faith (Which is where the whole soul bidness comes in). I'll admit there is an element of belief in Science (well Pseudo-Science, or World view as you put it) but even then it deals largely in probability, observations, and logical resolution. Religion deals in blind faith. There's my distinction, there is my definition (for the purpose of this discussion), faith in religious context (Which was the whole point of podboqs initial comment).

What's more, Religions are diverse, Science is singular in its implementation. There may be conflicting ideas and opposing groups with that single implementation, but they are different cogs in the same machine. Why should one religion have any bearing on any scientific, political, or legal situation at all? There isn't a why anymore, because it shouldn't be involved. It's not fair on the other religions, and it's not fair on people who don't have faith in the religious context.

Woohoo!! Discussions <3

The difference between the Copernican principal and a religion is that we can observe cmb in the universe relative to our cosmological position and determine that we are nowhere near the centre of the universe (Or even our own galaxy for that matter) and the fact that we are not special is backed by empirical evidence, that is, we can actively observe and monitor other celestial bodies, star systems, and galaxies like our own. While the existence of some sort of omnipotent being, or metaphysical soulform cannot be backed up anything other than stories from a time of ignorance and persecution, and eyewitness accounts of visions and such.

My previous post defined (And I think podboq will agree) the differences between Science, and Religious faith (Which is where the whole soul bidness comes in). I'll admit there is an element of belief in Science (well Pseudo-Science, or World view as you put it) but even then it deals largely in probability, observations, and logical resolution. Religion deals in blind faith. There's my distinction, there is my definition (for the purpose of this discussion), faith in religious context (Which was the whole point of podboqs initial comment).

What's more, Religions are diverse, Science is singular in its implementation. There may be conflicting ideas and opposing groups with that single implementation, but they are different cogs in the same machine. Why should one religion have any bearing on any scientific, political, or legal situation at all? There isn't a why anymore, because it shouldn't be involved. It's not fair on the other religions, and it's not fair on people who don't have faith in the religious context.

You're proof of the Copernican Principal relies on a scientific model of the universe you have chosen, which involves using the Copernican Principal. You've assumed what you were trying to prove. The cosmological position you give us is based on how you interpret observation, which is through the lense of the same scientific model. I've read about other models which do infact have us in a special position, and the predictions they make with that model also fit with observation.

You've already chosen what you want to be true, you've built up a scientfic model to match. And you only make changes to things when you youre model can't interpret observations to fit it. But what you chose in the beginnig you can't prove true, it is therefore faith, blind faith at that. You don't need religious rhetoric to be religious, you don't even have to be honest with yourself about being religious.

Only the hear and now can be observed, unless you put trust in somthing someone wrote down. If you want to prove that we find our origins in the Big Bang, then you'll need a time machine to go observe it. Or prehaps since that my not be an option you might put science aside (since you can't observe what you want to show) and take up mathematics. Use mathematics to prove it. Mathematics is the purest science anyway. But wait, even that requires that you start with axioms that you can't prove (though you can disprove ones that arn't true), but take on faith.

No because the observed effects are only possible in one variation of the same model. That is, the metric expansion of this universe, as a finite construct. The observed gradual drop in CMB temperature can only be solved by applying this model, that's the way it is at this point in time. It might be that we don't have the whole picture, and that's what it's all about, adding to our models as new information becomes available. Considering the overwhelming evidence that completly supports the principles of mediocrity in a cosmological sense, as well as the accepted model of the universe.....well.

And even if your somewhat right, maybe cosmology isn't about facts, maybe it's about probability, and a model that works. Even so there is no comparison between a probable model backed up by centuraries of observation and scientific development and reasearch (Peer reviewed extensivley over the years might I add), and folk lore about a non-corporeal manifestation of conciousness.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/bin/images.pl?embargo=0&viewtype=viewall&searchtype=freesearch&lang=en&string=hd...

Hubble Deep Feild....I'd say that's a pretty good arugment for the Copernican Principal.

No because the observed effects are only possible in one variation of the same model. That is, the metric expansion of this universe, as a finite construct. The observed gradual drop in CMB temperature can only be solved by applying this model, that's the way it is at this point in time. It might be that we don't have the whole picture, and that's what it's all about, adding to our models as new information becomes available. Considering the overwhelming evidence that completly supports the principles of mediocrity in a cosmological sense, as well as the accepted model of the universe.....well.

And even if your somewhat right, maybe cosmology isn't about facts, maybe it's about probability, and a model that works. Even so there is no comparison between a probable model backed up by centuraries of observation and scientific development and reasearch (Peer reviewed extensivley over the years might I add), and folk lore about a non-corporeal manifestation of conciousness.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/bin/images.pl?embargo=0&viewtype=viewall&searchtype=freesearch&lang=en&string=hd...

Hubble Deep Field....I'd say that's a pretty good argument for the Copernican Principal, and it's pretty too. New Wallpaper acquired :)

Bagpipes, which religion would you have dictate to people how they live?

Which religion has a Deity that compels it's adherents to drag initiates to it?

Is there a religion who's God condones FORCING others to love it?

no, I recognize none.

In a world with billions of people, and probably billions of unique perceptions on belief, NO religion should have the power to dictate civil law to the masses.

I'd go so far to say that it ought to be illegal for public demonstration of religion to be allowed. Have what ever flaky beliefs you want, but don't try to influence others with it. If they appreciate YOUR silent example and want to follow, more power to them.

Science is something we all have in common, the observation and manipulation of our environment to better suit ourselves.

While all of your arguments are relevant it seems as if the key difference here is perception. Like bagpipes id agree with the fact that ones perception of faitn and science are both greatly affected by ones individual decision making process and personal opinion upon those matters, but regardless of ones perception these "facts" and "factual beleifs" are all bases upon someone elses previous and if you would opinionated beliefs. All the things we have now for instance as far as technology is concerned was once "impossible" and at the same time one could percieve a talking and burning bush to be a "miracle" or maby just maby someone ate the wrong catcus berry?? (once again a matter of perception)

Me personally i "practice" buddhism and when i say that i mean i dont put my "faith" in a religious figure defined by previous opinions but i do practice there ideal to better myself in any and every way possible. I make it a point to extract any ideas from any religion to do exactly that.

Besiding u all getting way off the subject, lol, i will say i do condone stemcell research due to its possibilities as far as saving a life or for that matter millions. If in the case that i am wrong and "god" does punish me for condoning something soo "brutal" as stemcell research id simply ask what happend to free will??

As far as telling people what to do no one has that right, let them do what they want and obviously your going to do what you want so stop whining because if the research saves even 1,000 people who would have died than your say will have NOTHING to do with there free will.

P.S. maby someday you whiners can have a child who is suffering so horribly due to a genetic disorder called Klinefelter Syndrome and then tell me you wouldent even try a cure if it were developed by the stemcells. Oh yeah almost all medical advancements have come at the disposal of previous people or cadavers. -cries a river-

As to stem cells. There are proven resulst from adult stem cell research. And even taking skin cells, turning them back into stem cells and then onto useful things. Now, why bother with embryonic stem cell research which has only given promises and has yet to make good on those promises when we already have other routes we can take which are already giving what they promised...and don't even involve the ethical problems?

As to making religious practices illegal. Then you must remove the mention of evolution as a means of origins from every text book, and must ban people from talking about it in public. Because as a means from origins it is untestable, unobservable, and taken on faith. And podboq, you're statement that you recognize no such God is a faith statement, if not, then write up a rigourous proof of it here. By your own suggestion you would not be able to make that statement, it would be illegal.

Thanks for writing about the candidates' stance on stem cell research. Obama and McCain's views on stem cell research, as well as all scientific and medical research, are key issues in this election. In addition to the ScienceDebate 2008 survey, both candidates responded to a survey called Your Candidates-Your Health which asked for their views on health research. You can check out their answers here.

Thanks for writing about the candidates' stance on stem cell research. Obama and McCain's views on stem cell research, as well as all scientific and medical research, are key issues in this election. In addition to the ScienceDebate 2008 survey, both candidates responded to a survey called Your Candidates-Your Health which asked for their views on health research. You can check out their answers here.

Boka, you said we won't be part of destruction of unborn babies in this country. HELLO abortion is legal in this country. I personally would never abort my child. But if my child had a disability or was confined to a wheel chair I would do anything I could to find a cure for him/her in order to give them a normal life and that includes stem cell treatment. If you wouldn't do the same for your child then shame on you.

All godless countries fail. USSR, china japan. They die from within. Christianity needs to the center of all USA decisisions. If science is your center you will be hopelessly lost. Science solves nothing.

"Christianity needs to be the center of all USA decisions"... lmao, it wouldn't BE the USA without a constitution that prevents ANY/ALL religions from being the driving force of Law.

Making moral decisions, through your vote, should be illegal too, I don't decide other people's morals for them based on my own. According to some beliefs, God gave us free will, as has been mentioned here. Where's the free will when the Religious force others through civil law to live by their standards?

Podboq. I take it you don't study much outside what you've chosen to be true. It seems that you have a very narrowminded, not to mention inconsistent, view of the whole world.

ANY/ALL religions are not prevented by the constitution. The seperation of church and state was established because the Founding Fathers didn't want to have another Church of England. They had multiple denominations, so they didn't want one incontrol of th government. However, many of them did say that if Christian (not any specific denomination) morals were not taught and upheld the country would fall apart. You know, like people would do really shady buiseness deals that could crash the economy or somthing.... Further, Naturalism is promoted to the point where it must be taught in our public schools, so much for not allowing any religion to control our decisions.

Making moral decisions should be illegal eh? Then what standard do we make laws? Murder is illegal because it is immoral. Rape is illegal because it is immoral. Now you might say that 'those are held in common by everyone' not so, if that were true we wouldn't hear about them so much on the news. The question isn't whether or not to legislate morality, but who's morality do we legislate. And that my friend is the interesting part of Democracy... Everyone gets to pipe in, though not everyone gets their way.

Free will is an interesting theological debate. I know some very strong Christians who would doubt that it can exist, at least in the normal way it is defined. However, your understanding of it is flawed anyway, if you think that merely putting a law in place limits someones ability to chose if they obey it or not. Just because there is a consequence to an action doesn't mean that the action was any less freely chosen by the person that did it.

Finally, you in saying that no one should allow their religious views to dictate their vote directly contradicts your next sentence. When you say "Making moral decisions, through your vote, should be illegal too" you are infact deciding other peoples morals based on your own.

I find it highly entertaining how an article about stem cell research has turned into a religious debate. Regardless of the government religion will be present and most commonly perdominant, not to be confused with a religion mandating a country. Even the USA currency states "in god we trust" so to say religion should not be present in a government is redicous. I will agree however moral standards need to be present in a society to maintain order and if in the case that there influenced by religion for the better than so be it.

What it all comes down to is exatcly what Bagpipes100 was stating, the outcome of this entire conversation will result in one thing, people have free will (as given by "god" and the country) and people are stubborn so there is no point in whining or complaining. If your against abortion cry about it if your not go and do what youd like.

Me on the other hand im all for stem cell research and i hope it will bear unexpected fruit in the tree of life but until then may your debates about im right and your wrong all diminish and i wish you all long days and plesant nights.

I've been trying to post this for a few days but apparently the IP of my work has been banned for spamming. I'm assuming it's because every time I try to post a comment, it seems to post twice :/ In anycase, it's a bit late so it doesn't cover the last couple of posts.

No because the observed effects are only possible in one variation of the same model. That is, the metric expansion of this universe, as a finite construct. The observed gradual drop in CMB temperature can only be solved by applying this model, that's the way it is at this point in time. It might be that we don't have the whole picture, and that's what it's all about, adding to our models as new information becomes available. Considering the overwhelming evidence that completely supports the principles of mediocrity in a cosmological sense, as well as the accepted model of the universe.....well.

And even if your somewhat right, maybe cosmology isn't about facts, maybe it's about probability, and a model that works. Even so there is no comparison between a probable model backed up by centuries of observation and scientific development and research (Peer reviewed extensively over the years might I add), and folk lore about a non-corporeal manifestation of consciousness.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/bin/images.pl?embargo=0&viewtype=viewall&searchtype=freesearch&lang=en&string=hd...

Hubble Deep Field....I'd say that's a pretty good argument for the Copernican Principal, and it's pretty too. New Wallpaper acquired :)

As for your last comment, can you say "Fundamentalism"? How can such an archaic, unbending belief help us? I'll tell you how, it can't. All it can do is grind our race to a screeching halt, hidden behind your god figure. Need I remind you that more than a few scientific pioneers were considered enemies of the church?

We, as humans, have been given a wonderful gift. That gift is the ability to understand and comprehend the universe around us. We have the imagination to transcend the bounds of our design. We no longer need Religion. Its purpose has been served, we are ready to come to the realization that we are alone, threes no one watching over us, but, we are human. We have seen the stars, we have been in space, we are starting to understand the workings of galaxies, and we are starting to understand the workings of subatomic particles.

You say Science solves nothing? But you so wrong, Science solves everything! Disease, poverty, fear, maybe one day, even death. Science can solve all these problems. You know what can't solve anything? Hiding behind your god figure, to scared to leave the safety of his illusionary wing to venture a look at the marvels of the universe, to stuck in an archaic belief that's purpose has long been served to experience the wonders of progress. Faith in god doesn't cure world hunger, faith in god doesn't cure terminal illness, faith in god doesn't allow us to make leaps and bounds every single day for the good of man kind...

Even if there is a god.....don't you think he'd like to see his children grow? Grow into something more than blind sheep following the shepherd. Maybe he knows we need to forge our own path, maybe there hasn't been a return of the son of god, simply because they want us to find our own way in the universe...I don't know about you, but I would be horribly upset if my daughter spent her life in search of me, not experiencing the miracles that nature shows us every single day.

Because when it comes down to it. We are much more than the sum of our parts, we are much more than a natural evolutionary state, oh yes, we are much more than that...we are human.

I don't know whether there is a god...what I do know, is that I don't want to worship any deity who would stop us from reaching as far as we possibly can. Be that to the stars, or right down into our own construction.

It's pointless kill unborn babies for stem cells when stem cells can be made from adult cells.

I dont usually let myself sink to an I.Q. lower than 225 but i mean cummon people have some common sense if it was your life on the line then it would be a different story all together. When i was in the marines in iraq as a sargent i saw quite a few young men who who said and swore they would never harm another living soul, but its a whole different ball game when you have a 12yr old boy running at you with an AK-47 who just shot your good friend in the chest. All things are a matter of circumstance and i do wish some very very ignorant people would have the oppertunity to have some form of enlightenment besiding the invisible man, hey at least i can see mine (deoxyribonucleic acid) and my little macromolecule is just as amazing as your miracle maker :) I meant to add this last time but BOKA get ahold of yourself china is one of the main and only lasting great empires, most others have seemed to have fallen.
Long days and pleasant night
~Taio~

where is all the whining about how these cells are destroyed in the end. How is it that these people can constantly try to shove their fanatically views on the rest of society when they say nothing about the end results of these cells if they are not used. If they are not used they have acid poured on them to destroy them. So it begs the question is it so ethical to destroy something with acid that could be used to help millions of people or even one person. How is it that someone has come to a time in their life and beliefs that they can set in judgement about how to use something that will eventually be destroyed, something already shown to have the ability to benefit. Are they to be given the job of pouring the acid over these cells because they will do it with love in their hearts? That would be like waiting until the food spoils and then throw it away rather than using it for the benefit of the those needing it to stay alive.

maybe they want a law that sperm and ova should NOT be joined outside the body of a female to gestate the resulting zygote?