Alice C. Linsley
If the biblical worldview is true, no discrepancy should exist between genetics and the biblical assertion that the order of creation is fixed. Those who believe that the Bible presents a true view of reality must understand what is meant by "fixed order of creation" and what genetics has established about human origins.
Before we consider what the Bible says about the order of creation, let us define the difference between change and flux. Though water appears in states such as ice, steam, liquid and clouds, the essence of water is fixed. Water remains water though it fluctuates. What is often termed evolutionary "change" is really flux, a distinction many fail to make. Flux is expected within species. This is not the same as evolving from one species into another, and flux within a fixed order exposes problems with the evolutionary convergence theory.
The claim of universality of the DNA code as a prediction of common descent doesn't align with known variations that violate this prediction. At the same time there appear to be specific fixed boundaries within the DNA code. It is ludicrous to assume that because nurse sharks and camels share an antigen receptor protein they are descended from a common ancestor. The DNA sequences that code for the proteins are different between sharks and camels.
This suggests that what are held to be examples of evolutionary changes are not really changes. The horse was once smaller and is now large. Yet the horse's essence has not changed. The earliest human fossils show a range of anatomical features yet all these features are found among humans today. The nearly complete skulls of people who lived 160,000 years ago are, in the words of paleontologist Tim White, "like modern-day humans in almost every feature."[1]
When Jeremy DeSilva, a British anthropologist, compared the ankle joint, the tibia and the talus of fossil "hominins" between 4.12 million to 1.53 million years old, he discovered that all of the hominin ankle joints resembled those of modern humans rather than those of apes. [2]
Some of the australopithecine fossils dating between 700,000 and 2.4 million years are recognized as "early human fossils". Although the Leakeys classified these as "ape of the South" some are recognized as having had human dentition, bipedalism and stone tools.[3]
With DNA samples from 2400 individuals from more than 100 modern African populations, researchers have identified a panel of 1327 sites of genetic variation across the entire genome. Analysis of the data suggests that modern Africans are descended from 14 ancestral populations, which correlate with known linguistic groups. Comparative linguistics and genetics are moving to similar conclusions when it comes to the question of "change" among humans. The evidence in both fields indicates a limited amount of flux, but no essential change.[4]
In other words, there is no evidence of essential change within "kinds", and no support for the macro-evolutionary worldview of change from one kind into another kind. Roux and others say, "Evolutionary convergence at the molecular level is presumed to be widespread, but is poorly documented."[5] Convergent evolution is an interpretation, not an unbiased presentation of data.
This writer believes that God created a cross-shaped fixed reality in which there is constant flux, but no real change. As Professor Scott Rae has written, "Scripture affirms that there is a fixed order that governs the natural physical world."[6]
The Bible teaches that God created in an orderly fashion from the least complex creatures to humans, the most complex creatures. It teaches that each "kind" reproduces according to its own kind, and the mixing of kinds (even different fibers) is discouraged or forbidden.The Bible teaches that violations of the order of creation represent sinful rebellion against the Creator.
Eve's sin, as St. John Chrysostom points out, is a sin against the order of creation because she exchanged her glory as one made in the image of God for subservience to the serpent, a creature low in the order of creation. Onanism is a violation of the order of creation because, just as the seed of plants should fall to the earth to bring forth plants from the earth, so the seed of man should fall on his own kind (the womb), from which man comes forth.
In Jeremiah 33:25 we read: "Yahweh says this, 'If I have not created day and night and fixed the laws governing heaven and earth, why, then I shall reject the descendents of Jacob and of David my servant and cease to choose rulers from his descendents for the heirs of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!'"
Jeremiah 31:35-36 says, "Yahweh who provides the sun to shine by day, who regulates moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs the sea, making its waves roar, he whose name is Yahweh Sabaoth, says this: 'Were this established order ever to pass away before me, Yahweh declares, then the race of Israel would also cease being a nation for ever before me!"
We note in these passages that the fixed order of creation is linked to God's plan to choose rulers from among Abraham's people. Genesis reveals that the fixed nature of God's plan is expressed in the unchanging kinship pattern of Abraham's people. The kinship pattern of these people remains consistent from before the time of Abraham to the birth of Jesus Christ. This so that the Christ should appear according to God's ordained plan.
The constellations, the stars and planets move according to a fixed plan. That's how they can identify apparent singularities such as the Star of Bethlehem.
Progress in the sciences depends on the fixed order of creation. It assumes the consistency of the laws of nature. Geneticists recognize certain genetic patterns which form the basis for their research. Physicists' exploration of the material world is based on physical laws that do not change. Anthropologists find that humans are essentially the same regardless of their environments. The oldest known human skeletons show the same range of flux, the same essential nature as human skeletal structures today. Even technological "change" has been possible because of the fixed nature of mathematical and physical laws.
All this is to say that the hypothesis of randomness that is touted by the media is not supported by empirical evidence. The order of creation is fixed. We reap what we sow. If I plant corn, I harvest corn, not apricots. If I sow wheat, I harvest wheat, not frogs. All languages can be classified because there is order in human language. All born of women are human because there is order in the human genome. Events in the heavens are predictable because the stars, planets and constellations move according to a fixed pattern. This is how astronomers know where and when to focus their telescopes on a specific region of space. Singularities or anomalies are evident because they stand in contrast to the patterns observed in the fixed order of creation.
1. Read the report on the 160,000 year old Ethiopian fossils here.
2. Chimpanzees flex their ankles 45 degrees from normal resting position. This makes it possible for apes to climb trees with great ease. While walking, humans flex their ankles a maximum of 20 degrees. The human ankle quite distinct from that of apes. Read more here.
3. Working from their convergent evolution framework, Richard, Mary and Louis Leakey named some fossils "Zinjanthropus" (now called Australopithecus boisei), others "Homo habilis", and Lucy and her community "Australopithecus". These are presented as divergence strains of hominids, including the extinct and extant humans and mammals. This classification has been revised several times because the criterion of classification of human and ape has not been consistently applied.
4. To read about the "out of Africa" gene study go here.
5. Roux et al. 1998 The identification of a unusual antigen receptor protein structure found in camels and nurse sharks can't be explained by having a common ancestor.
6. Read excerpts from Scott B. Rae's book Moral Choices here.
Thinking about ethics and current events (Began 1 April 2008)
Showing posts with label embryonic research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label embryonic research. Show all posts
Monday, June 8, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Parting on Stem Cell Research
May 11, 2009 When Barack Obama removed George W. Bush's ban on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell research in March, the president cast his decision as part of a larger effort to remove politics from science. No longer would research, Obama said, be shackled by a "false choice between sound science and moral values."
It turns out the president cannot separate politics and science so easily. No sooner had Obama issued his order than conservative lawmakers in state legislatures began proposing new restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, ranging from criminal penalties to bans on state-level funding. In fact, Obama's decision has emboldened conservatives to increasingly link stem cell research to abortion. Far from conceding the issue, they are in it for the long haul.
But the stem cell battle is not just a high-profile clash of values. The dispute provides a sharp focus on how science may help reshape America. Several states have set aside billions of dollars to support stem cell research, and the new federal money Obama is promising will generally flow to those areas. That means states supporting stem cell research will experience an economic windfall while attracting highly educated technology workers who tend to vote Democratic. The more conservative states restricting stem cell research will attract fewer funds and fewer socially liberal voters. In short, a state's stem cell policy will influence electoral results and help determine whether a state turns red or blue.
Read it all here.
It turns out the president cannot separate politics and science so easily. No sooner had Obama issued his order than conservative lawmakers in state legislatures began proposing new restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, ranging from criminal penalties to bans on state-level funding. In fact, Obama's decision has emboldened conservatives to increasingly link stem cell research to abortion. Far from conceding the issue, they are in it for the long haul.
But the stem cell battle is not just a high-profile clash of values. The dispute provides a sharp focus on how science may help reshape America. Several states have set aside billions of dollars to support stem cell research, and the new federal money Obama is promising will generally flow to those areas. That means states supporting stem cell research will experience an economic windfall while attracting highly educated technology workers who tend to vote Democratic. The more conservative states restricting stem cell research will attract fewer funds and fewer socially liberal voters. In short, a state's stem cell policy will influence electoral results and help determine whether a state turns red or blue.
Read it all here.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Testicular Stem Cells
WASHINGTON - Cells taken from men’s testicles seem as versatile as the stem cells derived from embryos, researchers reported Wednesday.
The new cells could be useful for growing replacement tissues, according to a study in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature. But because of their source, their highest promise would apply to only half the world’s population: men.
Embryonic stem cells can give rise to virtually any tissue in the body and scientists believe they may offer treatments for diseases like Parkinson’s and diabetes and for spinal cord injuries.
The testicular cells avoid the ethical dilemma of embryonic stem cells, which are harvested in a process that destroys the embryos. For that reason, many people, including President Bush, oppose their use.
Avoiding the ethical problem“The advantage these cells have in comparison to embryonic stem cells is that there is no ethical problem with these cells and that they are natural,” said study lead author Thomas Skutella, a professor at the Center for Regenerative Biology and Medicine in Tuebingen, Germany.
Using testicular cells isn’t the only promising method that avoids embryos; recent studies also show promise for reprogramming ordinary body cells by slipping certain genes into them.
Read it all here.
The new cells could be useful for growing replacement tissues, according to a study in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature. But because of their source, their highest promise would apply to only half the world’s population: men.
Embryonic stem cells can give rise to virtually any tissue in the body and scientists believe they may offer treatments for diseases like Parkinson’s and diabetes and for spinal cord injuries.
The testicular cells avoid the ethical dilemma of embryonic stem cells, which are harvested in a process that destroys the embryos. For that reason, many people, including President Bush, oppose their use.
Avoiding the ethical problem“The advantage these cells have in comparison to embryonic stem cells is that there is no ethical problem with these cells and that they are natural,” said study lead author Thomas Skutella, a professor at the Center for Regenerative Biology and Medicine in Tuebingen, Germany.
Using testicular cells isn’t the only promising method that avoids embryos; recent studies also show promise for reprogramming ordinary body cells by slipping certain genes into them.
Read it all here.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Stem Cells from Wisdom Teeth
Dental pulp from wisdom teeth could be a new source of therapeutic stem cells, Japanese researchers announced recently.
Like embryonic stem cells, the new cells—known as mesenchymal stem cells—are capable of developing into a variety of tissues, including bone, cartilage, and fat. These new lines of stem cells can be created without the use of an embryo—possibly sidestepping controversy.
In many countries adults routinely get minor surgeries to remove wisdom teeth.
"The [wisdom] tooth is usually discarded into trash, so there are no ethical concerns," said Hajime Ohgushi, principal research scientist at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology in the Hyōgo Prefecture, Japan.
Read it all here.
Like embryonic stem cells, the new cells—known as mesenchymal stem cells—are capable of developing into a variety of tissues, including bone, cartilage, and fat. These new lines of stem cells can be created without the use of an embryo—possibly sidestepping controversy.
In many countries adults routinely get minor surgeries to remove wisdom teeth.
"The [wisdom] tooth is usually discarded into trash, so there are no ethical concerns," said Hajime Ohgushi, principal research scientist at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology in the Hyōgo Prefecture, Japan.
Read it all here.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Fewer Americans Favor Embryonic Stem Cell Research
While a majority of the American public still favors embryonic stem cell research, surveys by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press show that the size of this majority has declined somewhat in recent years. Indeed, after showing consistent increases in the early part of the decade, support for stem cell research fell from a peak of 57% in July 2005 to 51% in August 2007, when the latest poll was conducted. Roughly one-third of the public (35%) opposes embryonic stem cell research, saying that protecting the potential life of embryos is more important than conducting the research, while more than one-in-ten (14%) do not express an opinion on the issue.
Read it all here.
Read it all here.
Harvesting Embryos
For decades, stem cells have attracted the attention of medical researchers and others because they have the capacity to develop into specialized cells that make up a variety of organ and other tissues. These so-called "building blocks of nature" can literally transform into any other type of cell in the body, making them potentially invaluable in treating many diseases and injuries.
There are two basic kinds of stem cells: those found in certain adult tissues and those found in the cells of three-to five-day-old embryos. Adult stem cells, found in brain, bone marrow, muscle, skin, blood and liver tissue, can change into a limited number of cell types. The stem cells found in embryos, on the other hand, are pluripotent, that is, they have the unique ability to develop into any of the 220 cell types in the human body.
In addition to their versatility, embryonic stem cells are easier to grow in the laboratory than adult stem cells. Adult stem cell lines proliferate only for a limited time, while embryonic stem cells potentially can continue dividing forever.
The first and best-known success in adult stem cell research is the bone marrow transplant, in which stem cells from a donor's bone marrow are used to regenerate healthy bone marrow in patients with leukemia and other blood diseases. This therapy is still used today.
Read it all here.
There are two basic kinds of stem cells: those found in certain adult tissues and those found in the cells of three-to five-day-old embryos. Adult stem cells, found in brain, bone marrow, muscle, skin, blood and liver tissue, can change into a limited number of cell types. The stem cells found in embryos, on the other hand, are pluripotent, that is, they have the unique ability to develop into any of the 220 cell types in the human body.
In addition to their versatility, embryonic stem cells are easier to grow in the laboratory than adult stem cells. Adult stem cell lines proliferate only for a limited time, while embryonic stem cells potentially can continue dividing forever.
The first and best-known success in adult stem cell research is the bone marrow transplant, in which stem cells from a donor's bone marrow are used to regenerate healthy bone marrow in patients with leukemia and other blood diseases. This therapy is still used today.
Read it all here.
Embryonic Stem Cell Banking Worldwide
The United States is only one of many countries playing an important role in stem cell research. In the last decade, several European and Asian countries have become leading centers for the study of stem cells and their possible therapeutic uses. These countries, along with countries from other regions of the world, have greatly expanded the scope of stem cell research, creating an array of scientific advances and medical applications. Below is a rundown on the laws and policies on stem cell research in various countries, as well as their significant research efforts.
Africa
In 2004, South Africa became the first African nation to create a stem cell bank. The previous year, the South African government had enacted legislation maintaining a ban on reproductive cloning but authorizing the therapeutic cloning of embryos. In 2002, when South Africa's Mark Shuttleworth became the first African to visit the international space station, he conducted experiments designed by South African researchers to study the development of stem cells in zero-gravity conditions.
Asia
China prohibits human reproductive cloning but allows the creation of human embryos for research and therapeutic purposes. The government's most recent regulations on stem cell research, issued in 2003, came in response to international criticism that Chinese regulators were lax in their supervision and enforcement of ethical guidelines for stem cell research. Nonetheless, China continues to permit researchers to conduct clinical trials in which terminally or chronically ill patients receive stem cell therapy.
India has established a booming industry in stem cell banking, which involves storing a patient's stem cells with the aim of possibly using them for future medical treatments. In 2007, the Indian government's biomedical oversight body, the Council for Medical Research, banned reproductive cloning but voted to permit therapeutic cloning. The council also issued guidelines for clinical trials involving stem cells. Currently, stem cells have only been approved for use in bone marrow transplants.
In 2004, Japan's Council for Science and Technology Policy voted to allow scientists to conduct stem cell research for therapeutic purposes, though formal guidelines have yet to be released. In November 2007, Japanese scientists, in collaboration with American researchers, discovered that human skin cells could be reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells. Though still in the early experimental phase, some believe that this procedure could help diffuse the debate over the destruction of embryos by providing a viable alternative to using embryonic stem cell lines.
Read it all here.
Africa
In 2004, South Africa became the first African nation to create a stem cell bank. The previous year, the South African government had enacted legislation maintaining a ban on reproductive cloning but authorizing the therapeutic cloning of embryos. In 2002, when South Africa's Mark Shuttleworth became the first African to visit the international space station, he conducted experiments designed by South African researchers to study the development of stem cells in zero-gravity conditions.
Asia
China prohibits human reproductive cloning but allows the creation of human embryos for research and therapeutic purposes. The government's most recent regulations on stem cell research, issued in 2003, came in response to international criticism that Chinese regulators were lax in their supervision and enforcement of ethical guidelines for stem cell research. Nonetheless, China continues to permit researchers to conduct clinical trials in which terminally or chronically ill patients receive stem cell therapy.
India has established a booming industry in stem cell banking, which involves storing a patient's stem cells with the aim of possibly using them for future medical treatments. In 2007, the Indian government's biomedical oversight body, the Council for Medical Research, banned reproductive cloning but voted to permit therapeutic cloning. The council also issued guidelines for clinical trials involving stem cells. Currently, stem cells have only been approved for use in bone marrow transplants.
In 2004, Japan's Council for Science and Technology Policy voted to allow scientists to conduct stem cell research for therapeutic purposes, though formal guidelines have yet to be released. In November 2007, Japanese scientists, in collaboration with American researchers, discovered that human skin cells could be reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells. Though still in the early experimental phase, some believe that this procedure could help diffuse the debate over the destruction of embryos by providing a viable alternative to using embryonic stem cell lines.
Read it all here.
Monday, August 4, 2008
NJ Backdoor Funding for Embryonic Research
Trenton, NJ, July 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Despite last year's referendum in which the public soundly defeated a measure to give public funding to research that destroys human embryos, a New Jersey assemblyman has introduced legislation that could do just that.
Last November, New Jersey voters rejected a scheme to borrow $450 million for stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research.
Now, however, Assemblyman Neil Cohen has announced plans to introduce legislation to create the "New Jersey Stem Cell Research Assistance Program," purporting to jumpstart financing for stem cell research in the State. The plan would include taxpayer assistance for private investors when research institutions default on loans. The proposal also would expand the authority of the Economic Development Authority and the Commission on Science and Technology.
A recent report, however, suggests that the proposal will violate the will of New Jersey's voters on embryonic stem cell research. The current edition of NJ BIZ reports, "Under Cohen's plan, the money raised would be used to extend loans to stem cell research, and there could later be funding for embryonic stem cell research."
"We will urge opposition to this and any other stealth effort to circumvent the will of the people unless there is a guarantee expressly written into the legislation that this proposal shall never include funding for embryonic stem cell research," stated Marie Tasy, Executive Director of New Jersey Right to Life.
"As presently written, this proposal sets the foundation to later enact an end-run around the voters to fund embryonic stem cell research," Tasy said.
Assemblyman Jay Webber added his voice to those criticizing Cohen's legislation. While he said he is "heartened" that the State appears to be "turning its attention to effective and morally acceptable research with adult stem cells," Webber continued, "I also remain opposed to any effort to put New Jersey on a path toward taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell experimentation, which New Jersey voters wisely rejected last Fall. Trenton lawmakers should not seek to achieve through the backdoor what they lost at the ballot box, and I will stand with like-minded Members of the Legislature to oppose such efforts."
Assemblyman Mike Doherty concurred. "Last year, the voters of New Jersey said NO to government-sponsored stem cell research. Unfortunately, Assemblyman Cohen and his supporters do not understand that NO really means NO. The proposed legislation ignores the express will of the voters and will result in the State of New Jersey subsidizing research activities that the voters do not want.
"Let the private sector fund medical research. This legislation will also open the door to government-subsidized embryonic stem cell research. New Jersey is broke. The last thing we need to do is grow the size of state government and spend money that we do not have on controversial medical research."
Several other members of the assembly also expressed their opposition to Cohen's legislation, including Michael Corroll, John Rooney, and Alison Littell McHose.
"It is both fiscally and morally irresponsible for government to be involved in trying to surreptitiously subsidize stem cell research that has never produced cures and involves the destruction of human embryos, especially after receiving such an overwhelming and resounding rejection by the voters last November," stated Assemblyman Michael Carroll.
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Last November, New Jersey voters rejected a scheme to borrow $450 million for stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research.
Now, however, Assemblyman Neil Cohen has announced plans to introduce legislation to create the "New Jersey Stem Cell Research Assistance Program," purporting to jumpstart financing for stem cell research in the State. The plan would include taxpayer assistance for private investors when research institutions default on loans. The proposal also would expand the authority of the Economic Development Authority and the Commission on Science and Technology.
A recent report, however, suggests that the proposal will violate the will of New Jersey's voters on embryonic stem cell research. The current edition of NJ BIZ reports, "Under Cohen's plan, the money raised would be used to extend loans to stem cell research, and there could later be funding for embryonic stem cell research."
"We will urge opposition to this and any other stealth effort to circumvent the will of the people unless there is a guarantee expressly written into the legislation that this proposal shall never include funding for embryonic stem cell research," stated Marie Tasy, Executive Director of New Jersey Right to Life.
"As presently written, this proposal sets the foundation to later enact an end-run around the voters to fund embryonic stem cell research," Tasy said.
Assemblyman Jay Webber added his voice to those criticizing Cohen's legislation. While he said he is "heartened" that the State appears to be "turning its attention to effective and morally acceptable research with adult stem cells," Webber continued, "I also remain opposed to any effort to put New Jersey on a path toward taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell experimentation, which New Jersey voters wisely rejected last Fall. Trenton lawmakers should not seek to achieve through the backdoor what they lost at the ballot box, and I will stand with like-minded Members of the Legislature to oppose such efforts."
Assemblyman Mike Doherty concurred. "Last year, the voters of New Jersey said NO to government-sponsored stem cell research. Unfortunately, Assemblyman Cohen and his supporters do not understand that NO really means NO. The proposed legislation ignores the express will of the voters and will result in the State of New Jersey subsidizing research activities that the voters do not want.
"Let the private sector fund medical research. This legislation will also open the door to government-subsidized embryonic stem cell research. New Jersey is broke. The last thing we need to do is grow the size of state government and spend money that we do not have on controversial medical research."
Several other members of the assembly also expressed their opposition to Cohen's legislation, including Michael Corroll, John Rooney, and Alison Littell McHose.
"It is both fiscally and morally irresponsible for government to be involved in trying to surreptitiously subsidize stem cell research that has never produced cures and involves the destruction of human embryos, especially after receiving such an overwhelming and resounding rejection by the voters last November," stated Assemblyman Michael Carroll.
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
South Dakota Medical Group to Evade SD Law
Sanford Health of Sioux Falls, South Dakota plans to partner with a California firm to develop a cure for Type 1 diabetes. The plan involves use of embryonic stem cells, which is illegal in South Dakota.
Fred Levine, director of the Sanford Children's Health Research Center at Burnham in La Jolla, Calif., has research experience beta cell transplantation, taking beta cells from donors and transplanting them into patients with diabetes. That research has involved both embryonic and adult stem cells.
The Argus Leader reports:
Sanford Health's effort to become a national research leader soon might take a large step forward, but to do so the health system would bypass a state ban on a controversial method of research.A new donation from philanthropist T. Denny Sanford will give Sanford Health greater access to embryonic stem cell research, a process that the system's chief executive, Kelby Krabbenhoft, has expressed an interest in pursuing.
It's also a process that is illegal in South Dakota.
T. Denny Sanford says he will help the San Diego Consortium for Regenerative Medicine come up with matching funds for a planned $115 million stem cell research center in La Jolla, Calif. Sanford hasn't said how much he plans to give. The donation has not been formally announced. But the San Diego Union-Tribune reported this month that an "out-of-state philanthropist," whom the consortium has declined to identify, has pledged $30 million, with $10 million paid up-front and the remainder in $2 million annual installments.The consortium is made up of the Burnham Institute, the Scripps Research Institute, the Salk Institute and the University of California-San Diego.
The Burnham Institute is a major research partner of Sanford Health, which announced its intention this month to cure Type 1 diabetes within the lifetime of T. Denny Sanford.Sanford Health chief executive Krabbenhoft said he won't rule out stem cell research. The California connections might offer capabilities that aren't available here in South Dakota, he said.
Read it all here.
Fred Levine, director of the Sanford Children's Health Research Center at Burnham in La Jolla, Calif., has research experience beta cell transplantation, taking beta cells from donors and transplanting them into patients with diabetes. That research has involved both embryonic and adult stem cells.
The Argus Leader reports:
Sanford Health's effort to become a national research leader soon might take a large step forward, but to do so the health system would bypass a state ban on a controversial method of research.A new donation from philanthropist T. Denny Sanford will give Sanford Health greater access to embryonic stem cell research, a process that the system's chief executive, Kelby Krabbenhoft, has expressed an interest in pursuing.
It's also a process that is illegal in South Dakota.
T. Denny Sanford says he will help the San Diego Consortium for Regenerative Medicine come up with matching funds for a planned $115 million stem cell research center in La Jolla, Calif. Sanford hasn't said how much he plans to give. The donation has not been formally announced. But the San Diego Union-Tribune reported this month that an "out-of-state philanthropist," whom the consortium has declined to identify, has pledged $30 million, with $10 million paid up-front and the remainder in $2 million annual installments.The consortium is made up of the Burnham Institute, the Scripps Research Institute, the Salk Institute and the University of California-San Diego.
The Burnham Institute is a major research partner of Sanford Health, which announced its intention this month to cure Type 1 diabetes within the lifetime of T. Denny Sanford.Sanford Health chief executive Krabbenhoft said he won't rule out stem cell research. The California connections might offer capabilities that aren't available here in South Dakota, he said.
Read it all here.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Petition to HRM Queen Elizabeth II
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA21st
May 2008
Your Majesty,
For the defence of your most vulnerable subjects, for the future of the Realm, can I beg Your Majesty not to give Royal Assent to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
By legalising animal-human hybrids, the Bill disregards the distinction between man and other animals. In this it denies our immortal soul.
By legalising the creation of saviour siblings, the Bill proclaims that man and science can deliver us from suffering even by violating fundamental ethical norms such as no person is to be used (or created) as a means to somebody else's end.
By allowing the creation of fatherless children the Bill enshrines an extreme rejection of the Father. Fatherhood is intrinsic to life, encoded in the deepest reality not only of creation but first of the uncreated Trinity.
By resisting all attempts to lower the upper limit for abortions from 24 weeks the Bill proves itself to be against God's own gift to us: life itself.
Your Majesty is the only person in the world with the temporal power to prevent this Bill from becoming an Act. Please help us.
Fr Aidan Nichols, OP, wrote of your Coronation: "Taking the orb, surmounted by the cross, [the Queen] was reminded that "the whole world is subject to the power and empire of Christ our Redeemer; The sceptre, the supreme symbol of royal power, the ensign of kingly power and justice, was handed over simultaneously with the dove-headed rod, as a sign that justice and mercy are never to be put asunder."
In this Fr Nichols gives your subjects tremendous hope that whenever Parliament fails grievously, our monarch may protect us from evil. Please defend us.
Yours most sincerely,
James Mawdsley and The Undersigned
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA21st
May 2008
Your Majesty,
For the defence of your most vulnerable subjects, for the future of the Realm, can I beg Your Majesty not to give Royal Assent to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
By legalising animal-human hybrids, the Bill disregards the distinction between man and other animals. In this it denies our immortal soul.
By legalising the creation of saviour siblings, the Bill proclaims that man and science can deliver us from suffering even by violating fundamental ethical norms such as no person is to be used (or created) as a means to somebody else's end.
By allowing the creation of fatherless children the Bill enshrines an extreme rejection of the Father. Fatherhood is intrinsic to life, encoded in the deepest reality not only of creation but first of the uncreated Trinity.
By resisting all attempts to lower the upper limit for abortions from 24 weeks the Bill proves itself to be against God's own gift to us: life itself.
Your Majesty is the only person in the world with the temporal power to prevent this Bill from becoming an Act. Please help us.
Fr Aidan Nichols, OP, wrote of your Coronation: "Taking the orb, surmounted by the cross, [the Queen] was reminded that "the whole world is subject to the power and empire of Christ our Redeemer; The sceptre, the supreme symbol of royal power, the ensign of kingly power and justice, was handed over simultaneously with the dove-headed rod, as a sign that justice and mercy are never to be put asunder."
In this Fr Nichols gives your subjects tremendous hope that whenever Parliament fails grievously, our monarch may protect us from evil. Please defend us.
Yours most sincerely,
James Mawdsley and The Undersigned
Monday, April 14, 2008
George and Tollefsen: Embryos are Living Human Species
The heated debate over research using material taken from human embryos continues, now with Philosophers insisting that this ethical concern isn't for scientists alone. Advocates of embryo use argue that at such early stages, the cells cannot be considered a human person. However, Robert George and Christopher Tollefsen argue to the contrary in their recently published book: "Embryo: A Defense of Human Life" (Doubleday). George and Tollefsen present scientific and philosophical principles to establish the human status of the embryo. They maintain that the status of human being commences at the moment of conception.
They write that our argument "was that nothing acts on the embryo in such a way as to 'produce a new character or new direction of growth.' This is a straightforward fact fully established by embryological science. Nothing in the developmental process (certainly no action of the mother) transforms the developing organism from one kind of entity (say a nonorganismic entity or a nonhuman organism) into another kind of entity (a human). Human development is the development of an entity that comes into existence as, and remains until death, a complete, self-integrating, determinate human organism—a human being." From here.
Their book begins with the story of Noah. He was rescued, along with other frozen embryos, from the Katrina disaster in 2005. It was a human life that was saved, George and Tollefsen point out, the same life that was later implanted in a womb and was born in January 2007.
George and Tollefsen hold that a human embryo is a living member of the human species from the earliest stage of development. Unless there is natural or human intervention, a human being in the embryonic stage will proceed to the fetal stage and progress to maturity. The embryo is not another type of animal organism, nor can it be dismissively regarded as a cluster of cells, but marks the material onset of a human life.
George and Tollefsen maintain that the process of becoming a mature human being can only be said to begin at conception.
Read more here.
They write that our argument "was that nothing acts on the embryo in such a way as to 'produce a new character or new direction of growth.' This is a straightforward fact fully established by embryological science. Nothing in the developmental process (certainly no action of the mother) transforms the developing organism from one kind of entity (say a nonorganismic entity or a nonhuman organism) into another kind of entity (a human). Human development is the development of an entity that comes into existence as, and remains until death, a complete, self-integrating, determinate human organism—a human being." From here.
Their book begins with the story of Noah. He was rescued, along with other frozen embryos, from the Katrina disaster in 2005. It was a human life that was saved, George and Tollefsen point out, the same life that was later implanted in a womb and was born in January 2007.
George and Tollefsen hold that a human embryo is a living member of the human species from the earliest stage of development. Unless there is natural or human intervention, a human being in the embryonic stage will proceed to the fetal stage and progress to maturity. The embryo is not another type of animal organism, nor can it be dismissively regarded as a cluster of cells, but marks the material onset of a human life.
George and Tollefsen maintain that the process of becoming a mature human being can only be said to begin at conception.
Read more here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)