Science in the New White House

The research on stem cells, their location, availability for harvesting (hopefully without pain to the donor), uses, specificities, potential for cloning has only just begun. Recent discoveries of at least 3 types of stem cells in human milk that can survive as long as 7 days outside the body, are an example of that. When there is an philosophical agenda underlying a research effort (such as justifying on-demand abortion or finding a new profit-line), research findings can be suspect. Money often trumps morals, but without money, not even research scientists can eat!

When it comes to the man Charles Darwin and his work, an attitude that is bias-free seems to escape a lot of people.

I am a devoted follower of the Lord Jesus Christ who has as one of my favorite reads a facsimile first edition of On the Origin of Species.

Knowing what was not known at the time concerning genetics, Darwin’s work is far from perfect but as far as I can tell is a fine piece of work.

One of the first books I read when I learned to read in High School (I was a very slow learner) was The Voyage of the Beagle and I had the awesome privilege of visiting Olduvai Gorge in the 1960’s where Louis Leakey made his discoveries.

But because I was a “Conservative Christian” I could enjoy none of it.

I hope and pray that as people celebrate Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday early next year, Reasons to Believe will be celebrating the memory of this marvelous scientist as well.

Just in Jesus,
Steve

I would say the answer to that lies in understanding where the fertility clinic is getting these “unwanted” embryonic stem cells in the first place and what would happen to that process if they are suddenly paid to produce them.

I have bad vibes about this upcoming administration. The whiners who want God taken out of schools, parks, and off the money have a lot of say as to what is allowed to be taught. Evolution, like the dead horse it is, hasn’t had the last ounce of frustration beaten out of it yet. On Hugh's web site is a mountain of information that can be used to educate the next generation. But, you see, it's biased.
Here's what I believe: We teach kids from grammar school to college how to Create things; be they cars, boats, or electronic devices. We also teach them to set up assembly lines to assemble these "creations". There are tools and robotics to program that will put these creations together in a logical order. Creation happens in one realm and construction in another.
Now I'll make a giant step. Genesis 1 describes creation; and science untangles all the mysteries as to how this creation was put on an assembly line and came to maturity.
I don't believe Christianity will be injected into the school system; it’s a shame. Fools and cowards will keep that dead animal on the whipping post as long as it takes. Creation just makes too much sense.

I actually do discern God in all this. Here in the nation's capital, where RTB just held it's first regional conference (What Darwin Didn't Know), things aren't as predictable as is generally thought. If anything, post-election transitions are far more chaotic than the lead up to the election itself. And the flux continues, sometimes for a long period. Because people, not machines, run the joint. God's Agenda, not any man's, does and will prevail, although we may not see it clearly til later - maybe much later. America's elected officials still operate on power from the people, which translates into influence, guidance and ideas - it's as much voices as it is money (although the latter seems to dominate). It is also very competitive. Many stupid projects - science included - get funded merely for lack of an alternative and because somebody proposed it while somebody else pushed for it. If competent, creative, competitive experiments which advance scientific knowledge while challenging the status quo evolutionary model (or climate change, abortion, or any standing program), for instance, with RTB's testable creation model, were proposed, they would win a place at the table. For one thing, naturalism is bankrupt, as many naturalists try hard not to think about. Don't be snowed by all the harsh rhetoric and scary agendas.
Good (Godly) science CAN happen. Even in Washington. Program directors are eager for sensible excellence. Labs are hungry for good ideas. Got any?

The article referenced talks about “no more war on science”.

You can call me a skeptic, but I don’t think you can take the politics out of human reason. My question is what “war” and what “science” are they talking about?

Are they talking about the science based on the “non-ideological” belief there is a natural cause for life? The science that believes humans can experiment with the very essence of human life without moral and ethical implications of what it means to the value we place on human life and its equality of rights? The science that says global warming is the consensus and therefore the debate is over?

If the Bush administration did try to silence debate, it was wrong, but I don’t trust the politics of such a claim. Am I to believe there is no ideological aim to “this science” and it‘s only those on the “right” who have a biased perspective? What does this author mean by “no more war on science," could he be making a claim that with Obama, the debate over what science is, or should be, about is now closed?

These are the questions I would like to see addressed. Is it real science if we close the debate? When did we decide science is based on consensus? Is it less “political” and more “objective” when we close the debate and thereby “end the war”?

I agree that it would be wonderful if ideology were consistently subject to the scientific method and the pursuit of truth wherever it leads. I don't think we know enough of what a future President Obama might do or even what his position is on creation and the cosmos. We can however certainly pray that God give him wisdom and understanding.