From Nancy Pelosi's speech on Thursday in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007:
Science is a gift of God to all of us and science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure and that is the embryonic stem cell research….Yet, with his cruel veto pen, President Bush dashed the hopes of many for the healing potential of stem cell research.
First, though she says ESCR is “biblical in its power to cure,” embryonic stem cell research has produced no usable results.
Second, has she ever heard of private funding?Has the president locked all the scientists in a dungeon?No.President Bush, with his “cruel pen,” protected my will that I not fund ESCR.Meanwhile, not only did he fund other types of stem cell research, but anyone is free to invest in ESCR if he wishes.
Third, if anyone is thinking, “Well there aren't enough interested investors out there, so the government has to fund it,” then I say, all the more reason for the government not to waste our money.If there were any certainty about this supposedly huge potential in embryonic stem cell research, you can bet that all sorts of individuals and corporations would be clambering over each other to invest.The fact is, other areas of stem cell research are far more promising in practice (rather than theory), with already-achieved results.
So why push so hard for this when breakthroughs like this one are already happening that involve no ethical concerns whatsoever?Why this obsession with destroying embryos?Why shouldn't we, as a nation, fund the stem cell research that everyone can endorse and leave the funding of ESCR to those who aren't opposed to it and who actually see within it some tangible promise?
She then says, “If we have a scientific opportunity to treat and cure disease, we have a moral responsibility to support it.”
The principle she espouses here is ridiculous.We have a moral responsibility to support whatever gives us scientific knowledge that might help people?The Tuskegee Study, conducted from 1932 to 1972 was very helpful in teaching scientists about Syphilis and its effects.Never mind that African-American men were denied available treatment so that the study could continue.It's our moral responsibility to support it, right?
That example shows how flawed her principle is.There are loads of things you could do to gain more scientific knowledge for cures, but there is clearly only a moral responsibility to pursue scientific knowledge to help others if the pursuit itself does not cause moral harm.And if it does cause moral harm, we have the responsibility to not pursue it.
Therefore the debate over the moral harm of ESCR must be at least addressed before one can claim we have a moral responsibility to pursue it.Pelosi can't just dismiss without explanation or defense the idea that ESCR causes moral harm and skip to the cure part.
June 8, 2007 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger OvertonName: Roger Overton Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com Site:http://ateamblog.com About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35,
says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of
globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of
Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency
to overstate the AIDS problem.
SPIEGEL:
Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa…
Shikwati: … for God's sake, please just stop.
SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.
Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for
the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the
Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries
that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are
in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa,
the continent remains poor.
There's something to that old proverb: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” When it comes to fighting poverty simply throwing money at the situation can do more harm than good. We see this in Africa with generic “aid” and the loads of money being spent on “AIDS.” Instead of creating a higher standard of living, these programs are creating a society split between a corrupt upper class and a deeply impoverished and dependent lower class.
Here in America, we're on the same track with welfare and food stamps. These programs were intended to be temporarily help people get back on their feet. But today they are abused by people who think they have a right to receive support for doing nothing. And our government is more than willing to offer that support, even increase it.
Recently 4 lawmakers took a “Food Stamp Challenge.” They were to live for a week off the $21 the government gives to those who participate in the food stamp program. Not surprisingly, that budget afforded only a little unhealthy food. So what should be done about this problem? According to Rep. Jan Schakowsky, we need to increase the amount of money each family receives. Watch her recent interview on the Colbert Report. The answer should be to help people get off of food stamps and support themselves. If anything, the government should be in the business of empowering people to be independent and self-sufficient. People who spend their lives depending on what's given to them have no opportunity to better their lives. The only way that can happen is if more stuff is given to them (usually at the expense of people who actually earned what they have). Individuals who work for their livings develop opportunities to better their lives, not to mention virtuous qualities such as discipline and respect.
Most of the aid and welfare systems in place are actually systems of oppression, systems that relegate people to lives of poverty. If we truly want to help the poor, “For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!” Instead, teach them to fish.
What's better than books? Free books! At Christianaudio.com, you can download a different free audio book each month (either WMA or MP3 format), and this month they're featuring The Best of Jonathan Edwards Sermons.
Here's the description:
The Jonathan Edwards trilogy includes three of the most important sermons ever preached on American soil. Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is maybe the most important and well-known sermon of his, but also included is A Divine and Supernatural Light describing and illuminating what Edwards describes as a supernatural light imparted by God. His farewell sermon was given in June of 1750 and is a commendation to those who are in the Lord's service, a plea to maintain unity, avoid dissension and false doctrine, and a call to devote themselves to prayer.
Be sure to bookmark this site and check back every month.
In yesterday’s debate, Hitchens brought up an oft-cited argument against Christianity, saying that we would need an extraordinary amount of evidence before we could believe that an event as exceedingly improbable as the resurrection actually occurred.
Craig first presents four uncontested facts and clarifies the issue:
For now, I want to sketch briefly how a historical case for Jesus’ resurrection might look.In constructing a case for Jesus’ resurrection, it’s important to distinguish between the evidence and the best explanation of that evidence.This distinction is important because in this case the evidence is relatively uncontroversial.As we’ll see, it’s agreed to by most scholars.On the other hand, the explanation of that evidence is controversial.That the resurrection is the best explanation is a matter of controversy.Now although Dr. Ehrman says that there cannot be any historical evidence for the resurrection, we’ll see that what he really means is that the resurrection cannot be the best explanation of that evidence, not that there is no evidence.(pp. 3-4, emphasis mine)
Ehrman dismisses the facts presented by Craig as irrelevant since he has already ruled out the possibility of interpreting them as describing a miracle:
[M]iracles are so highly improbable that they’re the least possible occurrence in any given instance….I wish we could establish miracles, but we can’t.It’s no one’s fault.It’s simply that the cannons of historical research do not allow for the possibility of establishing as probable the least probable of all occurrences.For that reason, Bill’s four pieces of evidence are completely irrelevant.There cannot be historical probability for an event that defies probability, even if the event did happen.(p. 12)
Therefore, in this debate, Ehrman’s position that there is no historical evidence for the resurrection is based on a philosophical objection, not on a lack of available facts.
Since the objection prevents Ehrman (and many people) from ever considering the actual evidence, Craig then confronts the charge that a miracle, by definition, will always defy probability despite any and all evidence.He argues that we must take into account not only the intrinsic probability of the resurrection in light of our general knowledge about the natural world, but also in light of the specific evidence for the resurrection (I would argue that this should also include our evidence for the existence of God as well as any other background factors that make the resurrection more probable).One also has to place the explanatory power of the counter-hypothesis that there was no resurrection into the equation.He then proceeds to give a mathematical formula that will statistically account for all these factors, explaining where Ehrman’s mistake lies:
Specifically, Dr. Ehrman just ignores the crucial factors of the probability of the naturalistic alternatives to the resurrection….If these are sufficiently low, they outbalance any intrinsic improbability of the resurrection hypothesis.” (p. 16)
I won’t recreate the formula here since it would probably cause many of us to run screaming from our computers.But if you’re mathematically or statistically minded, take a look.I heard Richard Swinburne speak about this formula once, and he came up with a probability of .97 for the resurrection (Craig notes this in the Q&A section at the end of the debate).
All three hours of Hugh Hewitt's radio show this afternoon will be devoted to “The Great God Debate” between Christopher Hitchens (author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything) and Mark D. Roberts.
You can listen live here from 3:05pm to 6:00pm (PST) or download each of the three hours here anytime after they have posted.
June 3, 2007 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger OvertonName: Roger Overton Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com Site:http://ateamblog.com About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
“Mormon beliefs are not as un-evangelical as most evangelicals think.” This is according to BYU Professor Robert Millet and Professor and Pastor Gerald McDermott. The main point of their recent article on Christianity Today's website (Mitt's Mormonism and the 'Evangelical Vote') is that Christians should not exclude Mitt Romney from their consideration for President simply based on his religious beliefs. I agree with that. The problem is that in the process Millet (and possibly McDermott) is deceitful about the differences between Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity. James White has written a couple of great posts responding to the deceitful points of the article (Post 1 and Post 2). Unfortunately, it appears that this article is something of a preview of a forthcoming book co-authored by Millet and McDermott, published by Brazos Press (a branch of Baker Books). Our friend John Divito has the scoop on that.
The quote which I used to title this post is utterly false if we consider Evangelicalism a current manifestation of historic orthodox Christianity as taught in the Bible- believing in things such as monotheistic trinitarianism, salvation by grace alone by the gift of faith alone on account of Christ alone, etc. However, I'm afraid that contemporary Evangelicalism may be so far adrift from and/or ignorant of historic Christianity such that the quote has a ring of truth to it. “Mormon beliefs are not as un-evangelical” as we might think because Evangelicalism is not what it used to be. The more things such as the “New Perspective on Paul” are popularized the more Evangelicalism looks like a sect of Roman Catholicism, and as this occurs the message of the Good News as taught in the Bible is compromised.
There is too much ecumenism today at the expense of clear understanding of differences in fundamental beliefs. If we as Christians are not explicitly clear to our non-Christian Roman Catholic and Mormon friends that what their churches teach is a false gospel, then we are not truly their friends and are simply condemning them with a smile (as Piper puts it). If we are to be faithful to our call as Christ's followers and ambassadors to this world, we must live with a renewed boldness and submission to God's Word. And the fewer differences we see between Mormon beliefs, the Roman Catholic Church and Evangelicalism, the more fervently we should reject Evangelicalism as an abomination.
UPDATE: Our friend Keith Walker over at Evidence Ministries has been corresponding with Associate Editor Madison Trammel of Christianity Today regarding the article. Today he received a positive response affirming most of his criticisms and promising a future article outlining the differences between Christianity and Mormonism,
May 28, 2007 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger OvertonName: Roger Overton Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com Site:http://ateamblog.com About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
I don't typically plug books here outside of a review, but I think this one is especially worth a bit of promotion. In a few months, Kregel will be publishing Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ by Robert Bowman, Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski. This book is an in-depth study of Christ's deity as described in the Bible that interacts with much of the contemporary scholarship on the subject. Weighing in at 400 pages and at only $12.91, this is an incredibly valuable resource you should not pass up.
May 22, 2007 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger OvertonName: Roger Overton Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com Site:http://ateamblog.com About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
With Season 6 of 24 coming to a close tonight, we thought it an opportune time to point out an interesting investigation into the education of Jack Bauer. In his article, What Was Jack Bauer's Major?, Jimmy Atkinson shows that Mr. Bauer's credentials are impossible to achieve. Some people might see this as a scandal of sorts, but I think it just goes to show how prone Jack is to accomplishing what seems impossible.
And if you've got a few minutes (or terrorists) to kill, check out this spiffy “speed painting”:
May 9, 2007 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger OvertonName: Roger Overton Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com Site:http://ateamblog.com About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Dennis Prager's latest column is an open letter to our troops in Iraq. I found the letter to be generally inspiring, so I'd like to get the word out about it for forwarding by those who are in touch with our military over there. I'd also like to point out one paragraph that strikes me as especially important for our reflection:
You know that there is
real good and real evil in the world. You have seen both more than any
of us at home will probably see in a lifetime. Why so many in America
and the West generally no longer believe that there is good and evil,
let alone in the importance of having good vanquish evil, is a subject
for a book. But that is the problem here. So when, God willing, you
return healthy and victorious, you will have another battle to wage —
on behalf of moral clarity. In that regard we are losing our way.
Millions of our fellow Americans — often the best educated — do not
understand that those who send young people to blow up weddings,
kindergartens, market places and college libraries in the promise of a
paradise filled with young women are the Nazis of our time.
Prager (obviously a conservative) has offered in the past an important question for conversing with those who are against the war: Are the people our military are fighting evil? If someone cannot say that we are not at least generally fighting evil people (or people or who do evil), then we have no common ground for discussion. If the people we are fighting are not evil (or do not do evil), then by all means we should pack up our things and leave immediately. But if we are fighting evil, then we must give extremely careful thought to whatever decisions we make regarding our future in Iraq.
The larger issue that Prager is getting at is our culture's acknowledgment of good and evil, or lack thereof. I believe this moral understanding is the foundation of what made the WWII generation “the greatest generation.” They believed that their country and what it stood for was worth fighting for, that what it presented to the world was generally good, and that what Hitler and his allies presented to the world was generally evil. I think many, perhaps most, Americans still believe deeply in good and evil- as evidenced by the success of things like Spider-man- but many are confused as to what is good, or they no longer believe that what America offers the world is generally good. How we got here would make a great book. I've met many people who believe that patriotism means being critical of their country, how did we get to this point? Why can't Superman fight for “the American way” any longer?”
How often we approach the throne of grace as desperate beggars. Yet He never once turns us away, but lavishes the richest of riches upon us. 2009-10-06
June 9, 2007 Posted by Amy Hall 
Posted in Amy's Posts, Ethics, Main Page, Politics 
No Comments » 
content rss
Recent Comments