The announcement that the UK Government may ban this scientific research has prompted a lot of discussion in the media (e.g. BBC News website).
Before ranting on about the moral and ethical implications of this, it is always useful to check the facts... If scientists are taking the egg from a cow and removing all its contents before putting in human DNA from a stem cell, resulting in an embryo that is 99.99% human, that is a bit like putting a Snickers bar inside a Mars bar wrapper, and an ethical or moralistic argument against it cannot really be sustained...
However, the question that remains - and on which a variety of objectors should continue to focus - is, "From where and how are the stem cells obtained?"
05 January 2007
25 December 2006
The Lost Gospel of Judas
I first read about this earlier this year in an issue of the excellent National Geographic magazine. Now, having seen an audio-visual presentation of pretty much the same information by Channel Four, as a Bible-believing Christian, I feel compelled to comment as follows:
The Gospel of Judas is indeed a very revealing insight into the early development of Christianity. However, I do not see any justification for claiming that within 30 years of the death and resurrection of Jesus, the early Christians had become anti-Jewish to such an extent that they would deliberately set out to demonise Judas. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept that, many centuries later, the character of Judas has been used by those wanting to pursue an anti-Semitic agenda.
In the long run, however, I am certain that the emergence of documents such as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, and other ancient manuscripts will be of great benefit to believer and skeptic alike. This is because, no matter what the message, they help to cement the foundations of Christianity in the remarkable and historical person of Jesus Christ.
Both National Geographic and Channel Four make far too much of the existence of the Gnostics. You do not have to be a post-doctoral research fellow in theology to know about Gnostics (a cursory glance at the NIV Study Bible will suffice). Yes the Gnostics were one of many groups that existed in the 1st and 2nd Century AD, but it is ludicrous to paint Irenaeus, an early Bishop of Lyon, as some kind of anti-Semitic conspirator. All he was doing was trying to ensure the clarity of the message of the Church. Gnostics were mystics who believed that salvation lay in "the divine spark within each one of us", but St Paul said that we should see our physical bodies as the Temple of the Holy Spirit. So, clearly, there must have been more to it than that.
I suspect that the Irenaeus (i.e. the Early Church) took objection to Gnosticism because, a bit like the modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses, they replaced the the all-inclusive "gospel" (i.e. good news) with a "only-those-in-the-know" message. Whereas, the latter does not fit easily with Jesus' commanding his followers to "go unto all nations..." (see Matthew 28:18-20).
However, there is a world of difference between the mysticism of the Gnostics; and their rejection of the notion of the Trinity - and those that peddle the myth that Jesus did not die on the Cross and that Mary Magdalene had his love child. (I must admit though, the Vicar of Dibley, yesterday, was extremely funny!).
The Gospel of Judas is indeed a very revealing insight into the early development of Christianity. However, I do not see any justification for claiming that within 30 years of the death and resurrection of Jesus, the early Christians had become anti-Jewish to such an extent that they would deliberately set out to demonise Judas. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept that, many centuries later, the character of Judas has been used by those wanting to pursue an anti-Semitic agenda.
In the long run, however, I am certain that the emergence of documents such as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, and other ancient manuscripts will be of great benefit to believer and skeptic alike. This is because, no matter what the message, they help to cement the foundations of Christianity in the remarkable and historical person of Jesus Christ.
Both National Geographic and Channel Four make far too much of the existence of the Gnostics. You do not have to be a post-doctoral research fellow in theology to know about Gnostics (a cursory glance at the NIV Study Bible will suffice). Yes the Gnostics were one of many groups that existed in the 1st and 2nd Century AD, but it is ludicrous to paint Irenaeus, an early Bishop of Lyon, as some kind of anti-Semitic conspirator. All he was doing was trying to ensure the clarity of the message of the Church. Gnostics were mystics who believed that salvation lay in "the divine spark within each one of us", but St Paul said that we should see our physical bodies as the Temple of the Holy Spirit. So, clearly, there must have been more to it than that.
I suspect that the Irenaeus (i.e. the Early Church) took objection to Gnosticism because, a bit like the modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses, they replaced the the all-inclusive "gospel" (i.e. good news) with a "only-those-in-the-know" message. Whereas, the latter does not fit easily with Jesus' commanding his followers to "go unto all nations..." (see Matthew 28:18-20).
However, there is a world of difference between the mysticism of the Gnostics; and their rejection of the notion of the Trinity - and those that peddle the myth that Jesus did not die on the Cross and that Mary Magdalene had his love child. (I must admit though, the Vicar of Dibley, yesterday, was extremely funny!).
30 November 2006
Radioactive Poisoning is a Messy Business!
Given that short-lived (alpha particle) radiation from polonium-210 cannot even find its way out of a paper bag, the supposedly hi-tech assassins of Mr Litvinenko seem to have been very untidy. Unless, of course, they intended to leave trails of polonium everywhere, to throw people off their scent. The scientists amongst you will of course be quick to point out that the police are not finding polonium (Po-210), but the product of the decay process, which is lead (Pb-206).
But that does not make any difference. It still implies that the polonium was sprinkled all over the place, because - whether it was inside someone's body, or a metal box, or even a paper bag - it should not be there to be found.
I think the Metropolitan Police should "come clean", and tell us the whole story - stable and unstable isotopes; atomic numbers; the works.
This "dumbing-down" of news items has got to stop!
But that does not make any difference. It still implies that the polonium was sprinkled all over the place, because - whether it was inside someone's body, or a metal box, or even a paper bag - it should not be there to be found.
I think the Metropolitan Police should "come clean", and tell us the whole story - stable and unstable isotopes; atomic numbers; the works.
This "dumbing-down" of news items has got to stop!
29 November 2006
Apologies for the Slave Trade?
Thanks to Tony Blair deciding to express regret for the UK's part in the Slave Trade, this has been Big News here this week.
However, actions speak louder than words and, today, the ongoing slavery we should be apologising for (and abolishing) is the burden of debt that we refuse to remove from developing economies that cannot help themselves because of unfair trade rules, etc., etc..
Furthermore, given the content of the Stern Report, we had better start saving now in order to fund the claims for reparations that will likely be made in the future by the millions that will be affected by our failure to mitigate the effects of global warming. Nevertheless, President Bush, an apology would be most welcome...
However, actions speak louder than words and, today, the ongoing slavery we should be apologising for (and abolishing) is the burden of debt that we refuse to remove from developing economies that cannot help themselves because of unfair trade rules, etc., etc..
Furthermore, given the content of the Stern Report, we had better start saving now in order to fund the claims for reparations that will likely be made in the future by the millions that will be affected by our failure to mitigate the effects of global warming. Nevertheless, President Bush, an apology would be most welcome...
02 November 2006
Thank God for James Lovelock
It is just as well that James Lovelock is a patient man; undeterred by any amount of criticism and/or ridicule. Personally, I was very sceptical of his Gaia hypothesis up until only a few years ago, when the BBC first broadcast their excellent "Earth Story" series presented by Sir Aubrey Manning. I suspect that I was not the only one to watch it that said to themselves, "Wow, so there is solid evidence for the Earth being a self-regulating entity after all!"
Prior to this, as a Christian and a geologist who rejects tortological arguments based on the anthropic principle (i.e. "the universe is the way it is because we are here to observe it"), I had regarded James Lovelock's ideas merely as another clever atheistic attempt to explain the contingent nature of our existence (i.e. "it needn't have been this way at all"). However, now it would seem that the Gaia hypothesis is an idea whose time has finally come.
Having developed an interest in the fundamental influence that geology has on landscape at an early age, my main motivation for having pursued a career in hydrogeology was and is the belief that we have been entrusted with the job of looking after our planet. So, I for one should like to apologise to James Lovelock for having regarded his ideas with suspicion for so long and, I suspect, along with many others, hope that the global village community has finally woken-up to the reality of our culpability in the phenomenon of climate change, and our responsibility for doing something about it.
Therefore, the publication - and general acceptance - of the Stern Report has come not a moment too soon. The only remaining question now is, "How long will James Lovelock have to wait for his Knighthood?"
Martin C. Lack Bsc(Hons) MSc CGeol FGS
www.geosus.org.uk
Prior to this, as a Christian and a geologist who rejects tortological arguments based on the anthropic principle (i.e. "the universe is the way it is because we are here to observe it"), I had regarded James Lovelock's ideas merely as another clever atheistic attempt to explain the contingent nature of our existence (i.e. "it needn't have been this way at all"). However, now it would seem that the Gaia hypothesis is an idea whose time has finally come.
Having developed an interest in the fundamental influence that geology has on landscape at an early age, my main motivation for having pursued a career in hydrogeology was and is the belief that we have been entrusted with the job of looking after our planet. So, I for one should like to apologise to James Lovelock for having regarded his ideas with suspicion for so long and, I suspect, along with many others, hope that the global village community has finally woken-up to the reality of our culpability in the phenomenon of climate change, and our responsibility for doing something about it.
Therefore, the publication - and general acceptance - of the Stern Report has come not a moment too soon. The only remaining question now is, "How long will James Lovelock have to wait for his Knighthood?"
Martin C. Lack Bsc(Hons) MSc CGeol FGS
www.geosus.org.uk
24 October 2006
Rape is Wrong, but am I too ?
When it comes to sexual self-gratification, can someone please tell me where is the flaw in my logic? We all know the Biblical story of Mary and Joseph, but how many of us find it hard to accept that Mary may well have been a young teenager at the time of her betrothal to Joseph?
So, if a man is attracted to little children we call him a paedophile. If a man is attracted to retired people we call him a gerontophile. Therefore, surely, if a man is attracted to another man we should call him a homophile? You see, although I agree that consenting adults should be free to do as they please, I do not agree that young people should be taught that homophilia (a.k.a homosexuality) is normal.
Charles Darwin identified a mechanism that he believed explained how plants and animals have progressively developed over geological time. He was struck by the fact that we live in a world where organisms are demonstrably in competition with each other for scarce resources, and where those best-suited to their environment are most likely to survive (i.e. “the survival of the fittest”). Darwin went on to call this process “natural selection”.
Therefore, leaving aside the argument as to whether evolutionary thinking is compatible with faith in God (dealt with on my website), in terms of natural selection alone, the future does not look good for homophiles. They are infertile and incapable of sexual reproduction and, therefore, without human intervention they should lose out in this fight for survival.
However, on the contrary, it seems that the “gay rights” movement is destined to make homophilia a socially acceptable form of dysfunctional behaviour and, with the help of equal adoption rights, make it possible for such people to “have children”. If so, what chance do their adopted children have of seeing their parents behaviour for what it is?
P.S. I am not homophobic (i.e. I do not feel threatened by homosexuals). On the contrary, I feel great compassion for them. (Please see the relevant chapter in Why Men Don't Iron", by Anne and Bill Moir).
So, if a man is attracted to little children we call him a paedophile. If a man is attracted to retired people we call him a gerontophile. Therefore, surely, if a man is attracted to another man we should call him a homophile? You see, although I agree that consenting adults should be free to do as they please, I do not agree that young people should be taught that homophilia (a.k.a homosexuality) is normal.
Charles Darwin identified a mechanism that he believed explained how plants and animals have progressively developed over geological time. He was struck by the fact that we live in a world where organisms are demonstrably in competition with each other for scarce resources, and where those best-suited to their environment are most likely to survive (i.e. “the survival of the fittest”). Darwin went on to call this process “natural selection”.
Therefore, leaving aside the argument as to whether evolutionary thinking is compatible with faith in God (dealt with on my website), in terms of natural selection alone, the future does not look good for homophiles. They are infertile and incapable of sexual reproduction and, therefore, without human intervention they should lose out in this fight for survival.
However, on the contrary, it seems that the “gay rights” movement is destined to make homophilia a socially acceptable form of dysfunctional behaviour and, with the help of equal adoption rights, make it possible for such people to “have children”. If so, what chance do their adopted children have of seeing their parents behaviour for what it is?
P.S. I am not homophobic (i.e. I do not feel threatened by homosexuals). On the contrary, I feel great compassion for them. (Please see the relevant chapter in Why Men Don't Iron", by Anne and Bill Moir).
02 October 2006
Well what a Summer that was!
Hi folks,
Long time no blog, eh? Well what with being made redundant, being unemployed, re-landscaping the back garden, and having no access to the Internet at home (until Tiscali sort out what is wrong with the Broadband Connection that we are supposed to have)... but enough of the excuses already... After a very strange summer (in more ways than one), I am now back in employment (working for the UK's Environment Agency)...
Martin.
Long time no blog, eh? Well what with being made redundant, being unemployed, re-landscaping the back garden, and having no access to the Internet at home (until Tiscali sort out what is wrong with the Broadband Connection that we are supposed to have)... but enough of the excuses already... After a very strange summer (in more ways than one), I am now back in employment (working for the UK's Environment Agency)...
Martin.
06 August 2006
What's in a Name?
I have decided to re-name this blog to reflect my overall philosophy about life, rather than as an advertisement for my Christian Apologetics website (i.e. "Geoscience and Jesus etc...").
It was St Paul that first described the global Christian movement (recognisable disciples of Jesus through the ages) as the body of Christ. ("...one body with many parts..."), in which case none of us is the head (that is Jesus), but neither is any of us an appendix (i.e. an organ without any apparent function).
The trick is, however, not to spend your whole life trying to find out what your function actually is...!
It was St Paul that first described the global Christian movement (recognisable disciples of Jesus through the ages) as the body of Christ. ("...one body with many parts..."), in which case none of us is the head (that is Jesus), but neither is any of us an appendix (i.e. an organ without any apparent function).
The trick is, however, not to spend your whole life trying to find out what your function actually is...!
26 June 2006
Successful Information Exchange?
Simon said...
Why should science worry about gods, Martin? If scientists started trying to squeeze gods into things, we'd be going back about 1000 years.
In the long and winding road of scientific progress, not one step has been taken by religion.
From talking to various Christians, Christianity seems to be about general self-loathing and mistrust of humanity. Being brought up in a Christian society, we're given a sense of guilt about natural body functions and insticts and so we grow up feeling bad about ourselves and with a desire to "repent".
Isn't it all about feeling bad because you fancied your mate's wife, or pigged-out on a meal, or lay on the sofa watching TV all day, or wished your bullying boss would drop dead? - all things which are relatively harmless.
The picture came from a google image search. Horrible, isn't it?
Martin Lack said...
"In the long and winding road of scientific progress, not one step has been taken by religion.".... If it was not for the Christian concept of a rational God, western civilisation/science would not have developed the way it has.
"From talking to various Christians, Christianity seems to be about general self-loathing... all things which are relatively harmless.".... Most of the world's belief systems acknowledge that no-one is perfect; most conceive God as perfect and/or just. Religions are imperfect man's ideas about how to make himself acceptable to such a perfect God.
Therefore Christianity is not a religion, since its central point is that we cannot make ourselves perfect and so should not make ourselves miserable trying; just be grateful that God has solved the problem.
Simon said...
Martin, what gives you the idea the Christian god is any more rational than the others?
"Therefore Christianity is not a religion, since its central point is that we cannot make ourselves perfect and so should not make ourselves miserable trying; just be grateful that God has solved the problem."
So Christianity isn't a religion. Well, I learn something new every day.
Why should science worry about gods, Martin? If scientists started trying to squeeze gods into things, we'd be going back about 1000 years.
In the long and winding road of scientific progress, not one step has been taken by religion.
From talking to various Christians, Christianity seems to be about general self-loathing and mistrust of humanity. Being brought up in a Christian society, we're given a sense of guilt about natural body functions and insticts and so we grow up feeling bad about ourselves and with a desire to "repent".
Isn't it all about feeling bad because you fancied your mate's wife, or pigged-out on a meal, or lay on the sofa watching TV all day, or wished your bullying boss would drop dead? - all things which are relatively harmless.
The picture came from a google image search. Horrible, isn't it?
Martin Lack said...
"In the long and winding road of scientific progress, not one step has been taken by religion.".... If it was not for the Christian concept of a rational God, western civilisation/science would not have developed the way it has.
"From talking to various Christians, Christianity seems to be about general self-loathing... all things which are relatively harmless.".... Most of the world's belief systems acknowledge that no-one is perfect; most conceive God as perfect and/or just. Religions are imperfect man's ideas about how to make himself acceptable to such a perfect God.
Therefore Christianity is not a religion, since its central point is that we cannot make ourselves perfect and so should not make ourselves miserable trying; just be grateful that God has solved the problem.
Simon said...
Martin, what gives you the idea the Christian god is any more rational than the others?
"Therefore Christianity is not a religion, since its central point is that we cannot make ourselves perfect and so should not make ourselves miserable trying; just be grateful that God has solved the problem."
So Christianity isn't a religion. Well, I learn something new every day.
14 June 2006
Football and Fosters
I must come clean and admit I did not send you a postcard from our recent 3112-mile round trip to Venice (but don't feel miffed; we only sent them to close family this year). This was really fantastic; a drive through - or rather over - the Alps comes highly recommended; it is "ahhhssohm", as our American friends would say.
Anyway, although we came back with over 100 bottles of wine and about 6 litres of spirits (that's us sorted for another year), I did not get any beer!
What a dreadful omission, I hear you say... Well, I have just been checking beer prices in Morrisons this lunchtime, and 24x440ml cans of Fosters for £12 was the best I could find; which is just a little over £1.10/litre (about the same as you'd pay in Calais I think.
So, while it lasts; enjoy the football and the Fosters (I will),
Martin.
Anyway, although we came back with over 100 bottles of wine and about 6 litres of spirits (that's us sorted for another year), I did not get any beer!
What a dreadful omission, I hear you say... Well, I have just been checking beer prices in Morrisons this lunchtime, and 24x440ml cans of Fosters for £12 was the best I could find; which is just a little over £1.10/litre (about the same as you'd pay in Calais I think.
So, while it lasts; enjoy the football and the Fosters (I will),
Martin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
