Wednesday Religious Assessment 12/20/06

Wednesday Religious Assessment

The Wonderlost

The New Jew?

Newton, Einstein, and Maxwell - All three were devout men who believed God had ordered the world and universe in a fascinating and ultimately understandable way.
These two articles lay out Maxwell's Science, which was profound, and His Faith, which was equally profound

State Group Proposes Cloning Ban

Divine Architecture

Intellectuals for the Latin Mass

Christmas Sermons

New National Security Threat?


HUMANITY AWAITS THE RENEWAL THAT CHRIST BRINGS

VATICAN CITY, DEC 20, 2006 (VIS) - Christmas was the central theme of the Pope's catechesis during his general audience, held this morning in the Paul VI Hall.

"In these final days of Advent," said the Holy Father, "the liturgy invites us to approach ... the stable in Bethlehem where the extraordinary event that changed the course of history took place: the birth of the Redeemer. On Christmas Eve, we will stand once again before the manger, and contemplate in wonder the 'Word made Flesh.' ... The chosen people awaited the Messiah but imagined him to be a powerful and victorious leader who would free his people from foreign oppression. Yet the Savior was born in silence and in absolute poverty."

"Does mankind in our own time still await the Savior?" the Pope asked. "It appears that many people consider God as foreign to their interests. They have no apparent need of Him, and live as if He did not exist or, worse still, as if He were an 'obstacle' to be removed in order to achieve self-fulfillment. Even among believers ... are those who let themselves be attracted by alluring mirages and distracted by misleading doctrines that propose illusory shortcuts to happiness.

"And yet," he added, "with all their contradictions, their anguish and their dramas - or perhaps precisely because of them - men and women today seek a road of renewal, of salvation, they seek a Savior and await, sometimes without knowing it, ... the coming of Christ, man's only true Redeemer."

"Of course, false prophets continue to propose 'low cost' salvation, which always ends up delivering resounding disillusionment. Indeed, the history of the last 50 years provides an example of this search for a 'low cost' Savior and highlights all the consequent disillusionment."

For this reason, the Pope concluded, Christians must, "with the testimony of their lives, propagate the truth of Christmas, which Christ brings to all men and women of good will. Born into poverty in the manger, Jesus came to offer everyone the joy and peace which alone can satisfy the needs of the human soul."

In his Italian-language greetings at the end of the audience, Benedict XVI said: "In a few days it will be Christmas, and I imagine that, in your homes, you are putting the final touches to your nativity scenes, which are such an evocative depiction of Christmas. I hope that this important element, not only of our spirituality but also of our culture and art, may endure as a simple and eloquent way to remember the One Who came 'to dwell among us'."

After the audience, the Pope was awarded the "Prize for Charity" by the "Banca Alimentare," an Italian foundation that organizes, among other initiatives, the National Day of Food Collection. The reason for granting the prize, says a communique released by the foundation, is that since the start of his pontificate, the Holy Father "has sought to present charity - the sincere giving of oneself to others - as a natural dimension of Christian life."

Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone S.D.B., speaking during a meeting between the Vatican Publishing House and other international publishers, highlighted the fact that the award coincides with Benedict XVI's decision to donate part of his copyright earnings to a study center founded by his former theology students.
AG/CHRISTMAS/... VIS 061220 (570)



Save This Page

Monkey Is as Monkey Doo

Invisible Hand - Monkey Is as Monkey-Doo

From Stingray:

I posted this article because I happen to agree with Sherley's conclusions based upon my own research into actual and on-going Stem Cell research projects.

I am not against all Stem Cell research or attempts to develop medical cures, because those projects showing the most promise involve either mature (adult) cells or stem cells rendered from the host organism.

But the attempt to develop cures from any stem cells, say stem cell lines derived from a creature other than the original host creature is a canard. That is if you were sick, reverse development of your own cells to a more undifferentiated state, or even use of derivatives of your own mature cells show medical promise, but use of cells from another creature to develop a cure for you shows no, extremely limited, or only temporary promise (at best).

I suspect this is for both biological and genetic reasons, humans - indeed all creatures are built with fail-safes which prevent the direct adoption of alien tissue, no matter the state of maturity or immaturity, from being properly assimilated without a host of secondary problems.

Your own tissues however, reconfigured, would simply be out of time phase with the surrounding tissue (meaning would simply be at a different level of maturity if undifferentiated), which would also create a cluster of assimilation problems, but not nearly as many as the legion of problems associated with alien tissue and cellular and genetic structures not native to the original host. By using tissue from the original host there is no danger of typical rejection processes, adoption of the tissue is automatic, and assimilation (excluding possible states of maturity issues) is assured regarding the surrounding tissue.

Obviously, as even common sense would dictate, the very best and most promising cures will be derived from the cellular and genetic structures native to the host organism (assuming there is no congenital defect, then you would simply have to screen the tissue or genetic material used until one finds structures free of defects), and the attempt to graft alien tissue (structures or genetic material derived from a source other than the host) will go nowhere fast, and indeed if the promise(s) of generalized, undifferentiated stem cells were easily resolvable then we would already have derived miracles cures, instead of countless experiments which might someday offer promise if pursued indefinitely.

The truth is the entire problem with the stem cell debate, as well as with the debate on reverse engineering cellular states and structures is not how can it be done, but where should the tissue, cells and genetic material come from? If I were suffering from some disorder then the obvious cellular and genetic answer to my problem lies within my own tissues, my healthy tissues. My healthy tissues, properly rearranged and reformatted would lead to cures in almost every way properly efficacious for me and my particular disorder. If however alien tissue is introduced into my body, no matter the cellular state, the inherent genetic differences will still trigger a host of problems, as regards rejection, immune system functioning, infection, tumor development, improper assimilation, adoption of, replication of, and reproduction of the alien tissue, and so forth, probably for the rest of the life of the hosting organism.

Sherley is exactly correct; the problems inherent in stem cells derived from any source are manifold and likely to create cancers and systemic disorders for years and years to come in any host organism.

The answer however is simple and easy. Use healthy cells from the host organism (the same creature who suffers the disease or disorder), reorganize or rearrange or transform those healthy cells as needed and you avoid a whole legion of medical, genetic, cellular, tissue, and moral problems.

Of course in modern science the moral answer is usually immediately considered as somehow suspect, because ultimately most of the people who engage in the debate are not interested in either evidence or true science, just "really cool ideas," politics, research grants, and program funding. Most casual readers on the subject don't know any more than they have heard in the popular media, and have not done any research on such matters either, other than in popular mass market and trade magazines. They have never done real science, never run an experiment of any kind, have never read a technical paper, or even critiqued a scientific idea. They swallow their "hard science" like a calf at the teat of a Mad Cow, and if you attach the term science to the words you write then you can sell them blood from a gooney bird as if it were Kamchatka mammoth droppings. They derive their science from People magazine and the New York Times and Internet message boards. Sixteen year old kids think they understand science (and somehow they have confused this word in their minds with "life," as if the terms were interchangeable except for the variation in spelling) and are the most brilliant generation ever because they grow up on the Internet (they don't even know of the day when the Internet was an actual and real academic and governmental research and exchange network) and read articles posted from another friend who got the article from another friend who got it from a "social network" (in which you never actually meet the people you socialize with, just exchange safe-data) where it was posted from an original article on CNN. Imaginary networks of supposedly like-minded people, endlessly recycling the same erroneous data - the entire sum total of their research and base of personal experience and knowledge on any given issue. So it must be true no matter what the actual evidence. I net therefore I know.

But, c'est la vie. That's life in modern times.
Monkey is as monkey do.

The Glair of the Invisible Hand - On Being Partially Human

The Glair of the Invisible Hand - On Being Partially Human:





I support the AFA's position on these three bills, however, and I know I'm gonna catch hell about this, I am for two very narrow applications of this kind of research. I am not for the harvesting of fetal tissue to work with experimentation regarding human and animal DNA per se but I am for the following, the use of adult DNA, voluntarily donated that could be implanted in either fetal or matured animals which could then be tranferred back into the human source genome, or simply for adult humans to attempt to graft and replicate certain animal alleles to see if it is possible for humans to graft onto or develop within their own genetic code certain animal capabilities. For instance if a blind man could use, let us say, a hawk's genetic material and grow or develop the eyes of a hawk. Or if a person with damaged olfactory capabilities could develop the sense of smell and taste of a dog. Or even if a human being wanted some augmentation to already perfectly normal capabilities, let's say they wanted the hearing capabilities of a wolf and their genetic structure could be altered over time by admixing specific human and animal subcodes and therefore develop acute animal capabilities. I have experimented with such things myself and intend to do so in the future. In the above case I would not be for restrictions on human rights in any sense for people who had successfully somehow grafted within their own genetic code certain animal alleles, such people would retain all normal human rights. However they would not be allowed to use such modifications as any kind of legal or psychological excuse for any type of deviant, subversive or criminal behavior.

I'm also for allowing human tissue of a person of age being voluntarily donated to allow for implantation, grafting, mixing or amalgamation with animal tissue, either that of a young or mature animal or that of a fetal animal in development in order to produce an animal enhanced with certain human genetic traits. In this case I believe that such animals would have to be granted more rights that are normally afforded most animals and in many cases even more than are afforded most pets.

I'm also very much in favor of experimentation, using their own base genetic code, sans any human genome grafting, manipulating animal genomes to express progressive human-like cognitive traits, in order to produce more highly intelligent animals who are capable of more human-like cognitive functions. I've experimented with this myself and will continue to do so and think that such animals, possessing in some way parallel human cognitive capabilities should be granted near human rights. Maybe one day human rights. In either case I'm not for the allowing of fetal hybrids and chimeras of various kinds (nor knowing what I know about cloning do I much care for or think any great scientific or moral value to cloning), allowing the unrestricted free mixing of human and animal genomes. But I do think that you could produce more human like animals and you could produce humans with acute animal sensory and perceptual capabilities, if such processes were developed in the right way, which would be beneficial for both human and animal species.

In any case I'm gonna encourage my Senators to support these particular bill recommendations as proposed.



AFA Alert

Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 10:59 PMSubject: Senate to Vote on Important Bills on Stem-Cell Research and Cloning Tuesday, July 18
Donald E. Wildmon
Founder and Chairman July 17, 2006Senate to Vote on Important Bills on Stem-Cell Research and Cloning Tuesday, July 18Urge Your Senators to OPPOSE H.R. 810 and SUPPORT S. 3504 & S. 2754 Dear Jack,The U.S. Senate will vote on three important bills dealing with stem-cell research and cloning beginning Tuesday, July 18. No amendments will be allowed for any of the bills. It will take 60 votes out of 100 for any one to pass, otherwise they will be dead for the remainder of the year. Of the three bills to be considered, AFA STRONGLY OPPOSES H.R. 810, which would require federal funding of research using stem cells obtained by killing human embryos. AFA SUPPORTS S. 3504 - the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act - which would make it a federal crime for a researcher to use tissue from a human baby who has been gestated in a woman's womb - or an animal womb - for experimentation and AFA SUPPORTS S. 2754 - the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act - which would encourage scientists to seek ethical stem-cell alternatives. Take ActionContact your Senators to urge them to vote AGAINST the anti-life stem-cell bill, H.R. 810, and to SUPPORT S. 3504 - the fetus farming ban – and SUPPORT S. 2754 which would encourage scientists to seek ethical stem-cell alternatives. Please tell your senators that you are in favor of ethical stem-cell research, but not research that requires the killing of human embryos. If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.Sincerely,Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and ChairmanAmerican Family AssociationP.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!If you are a Federal Civilian, Postal or Military Employee, please consider AFA (#2058) for your annual CFC participation. Questions or comments about AFA? Contact us via